PDA

View Full Version : More DNA from stone age European(Swedish) farmers and hunter gatherers



Fire Haired14
24-04-14, 23:08
Today(April 24, 2014) possibly the greatest ancient DNA paper since Lazaridis 2014 (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf) 'appeared in Science" Skoglund et al. 2014 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1253448). I was informed by More ancient Scandinavians (Skoglund, Malmström et al. 2014) (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2014/04/more-ancient-scandinavians-skoglund.html). I just want to make people aware, i will add my own opinion after reading its Supplementary Materials (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/science.1253448.DC1/Skoglund.SM.pdf).



There is already quite a collection of stone age Swedish hunter gatherer and farmer DNA. The individuals from this study are highlighted. If individuals in older studies were sampled from the same site as samples in Skoglund et al. 2014 but were given a differnt date, I replaced the old date with the one given in this paper. Ancestral Journeys.org (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/index.shtml) is my source for the stone age Swedish individuals not in Skoglund et al. 2014



Mesolithic Swedish hunter gatherers
StoraFörvar11 aka SfF11(Male), 7,500-7,250 cal. B.P, Stora Karlso Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stora+Karls%C3%B6/@56.8679813,18.192694,5z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79b219afcc419:0xd28f7a71e03f5 adf): mtDNA=U5a1

6,873 ± 119 BC, Stora Karlso Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Stora+Karls%C3%B6/@56.8679813,18.192694,5z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79b219afcc419:0xd28f7a71e03f5 adf): mtDNA=U4b1

Motala1(Female), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a1

Motala2(Male), 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I PF3742+, I L41+, I1 S108-, I1 L845-, I1 M253-, I2a1b CT1293-, I2a2 L37-), mtDNA=U2e1

Motala3(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1b*(I M258+, I PF3742+, I2 L68+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U5a1

Motala4(Female) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala6(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=? (Q1 L232- Q1a2a L55+), mtDNA=U5a2d

Motala9(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I1 P40-), mtDNA=U5a2

Motala12(Male) 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I2 L68+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS5985+. I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-), mtDNA=U2e1


Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherers of the Pitted Ware culture (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPitted_ Ware_culture&ei=9qBZU8akGoiiyASstoCwAw&usg=AFQjCNHYVS7Fs4KD5uFFA4fHuWePhKDiPw&sig2=4kR4uD9xdNK3pCq_c_ppag&bvm=bv.65397613,d.aWw)

Ajv52A(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=V

Ajv59(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U

Ajv53(Female), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U4d

Ajv58(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): Y DNA=I2a1-P37.2, mtDNA=U4d

Ajv70(Male), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U4d

Ire8(Male), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ire+Vattenbruk/@57.7821,18.79283,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f6fc63bb964b41:0x82d2a a8af77e08d4): mtDNA=U4d

Ajv13(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U4

Ajv52b(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U4

Ajv66(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U4

Ajv54(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U5

Ajv36(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U5

Ajv5(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U5a

Ajv29a(?), 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Eksta+Ajvide/@57.2867896,18.1345203,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f79d08dd3452bb:0x9f063 41a4fdf8dc3): mtDNA=U5a

Fir15(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4

Fir22(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U4

Fir4(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5

Fir27(?), 2800-2000 BC,Fridtorp, Västerhejde, Gotland: mtDNA=U5a

Ire6b(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ire+Vattenbruk/@57.7821,18.79283,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f6fc63bb964b41:0x82d2a a8af77e08d4): mtDNA=T2b

Ire9(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ire+Vattenbruk/@57.7821,18.79283,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f6fc63bb964b41:0x82d2a a8af77e08d4): mtDNA=U4

Ire3(?), 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ire+Vattenbruk/@57.7821,18.79283,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x46f6fc63bb964b41:0x82d2a a8af77e08d4): mtDNA=U4



Neolithic Swedish Farmers of the TRB culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnelbeaker_culture), Frälsegården, Gokhem Sweden
(https://www.google.com/maps/place/FR%C3%84LSEG%C3%85RDEN/@57.9135788,13.8603064,7z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x465ae8d553c5f65b:0x81e457e04d258 8)

Gökhem4(Male), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H

Gökhem2(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H1c

Gökhem7(Female), 5,050-4,750 cal. years B.P.: mtDNA=H24

Gökhem5(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=K1e

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=T2b

Ste7(Female), 5,280-4,890 cal. B.P.: mtDNA=J

The mtDNA of the Stone age Swedish farmers and hunter gatherers is 100% constant with what has been found in stone age farmers and hunter gatherers from other regions of Europe. The hunter gatherers have about 100% U5, U4, and U2, and the farmers mainly have modern European-specfic subclades of haplogroups which are most diverse and originated in the middle east. Since mDNA H1 and H3 are most popular in western Europe today, i bet that Neolithic west Europeans like the ones in Sweden had a very high amount and mtDNA samples from them so far is great evidence this is true. So far all U5 samples from Swedish hunter gatherers are U5a(mainly U5a1, but also U5a2 and U5a2d), like Mesolithic Russians(specifically U5a1) and unlike Mesolithic central-west Europeans who had mainly U5b(mainly U5b2) and the only U5a subclade found are U5a2(including U5a2c3* and U5a2a). The U5a in Swedish hunter gatherers may be from east European-very ANE like ancestors,, while their Y DNA I2a1-P37.2 is probably descended of central-west European ancestors.

At least paternally modern Balts and Scandinavians don't show evidence of a high amount of Mesolithic Swedish ancestry. I2a1-P37.2 today is very very rare in Scandnavians and Balts(much of it is probably east European=specfic I2a1b1a-L147.2), there are some Scandinavian P37.2 samples in FTDNA's database who have not been tested for I2a1-P37.2 subclades i bet at least have unknown specific Scandinavian SNPs and are a brotherclade to I2a1b. Y DNA I2a1-P37.2 is likely a marker of Europeans who took refuge in south-western Europe during the last ice age, today it is most diverse in western Europe and so far has been shown to be the main lineage of Mesolithic central-west-north Europeans.

Ancient and modern mtDNA are great evidence that Mesolithic Europeans at least maternally largely descended of humans who arrived in Europe over 30,000 years ago. There are no Y DNA samples from Upper Palaeolithic Europe, but the fact that Y DNA I is most diverse in Europe, 6/7 Mesolithic Europeans tested have Y DNA I, and that it is estimated to be 20,000-25,000 years old is great evidence that many Upper Palaeolithic Europeans belonged to Y DNA I. There are other ancient and exclusively European Y DNA haplogroups like C1a2-V20 which is what Mesolithic Spaniard La Brana-1 had, but also F-96 and maybe others i don't know of. Upper Palaeolithic Siberian MA1 belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R* and he was a pure west Eurasian, it is possibly that some Upper Paleolithic European belonged to Y DNA R, Q, or another descendant of P.

Autosomal DNA shows that Mesolithic Europeans all descended from the same ancient source, that their modern descendants are largely confined to Europe, and that they are likely descended of very early Europeans who arrived i think at least before the last Ice age.

Autosomal DNA
By using D-statistics Skoglund et al. 2014 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1253448) found that Ajv58 fits as a clade with La brana-1, modern Sardinians fit as a clade with Otzi, and Gok2 has more hunter gatherer ancestry than Otzi. They found that all non-west Eurasian non Africans share more drift with Ajv58, which is because Gok2 had some basal Eurasian ancestry which does not have the shared drift between west and east Eurasians. The modern Europeans who share more dirft with either Ajv58 or Gok2 is constant with how Mesolithic European and near eastern ancestry is distributed in Europe. Northern and central Europeans are closer to Ajv58 while southern Europeans(incl. French) are closer to Gok2.

Not surprisingly modern Sardinians share much more dirft with Gok2 than any other modern populations. I was shocked to see that Sami(specifically from Norrbotten, Sweden) share much more drift with Ajv58 than any other modern Europeans, they share as much drift with Ajv58 as Sardinians do with Gok2. This suggests that Sami (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FSami_pe ople&ei=5rdaU7LOIKasyAH20IDQDA&usg=AFQjCNFiWiOdZvqDvwcsLRIrDEkDZsRn-Q&sig2=l2XU7eZiK5bKS4pdFDAloA&bvm=bv.65397613,d.aWc) have the highest amount of Mesolithic European hunter gatherer ancestry today, and coincidentally are the last Europeans who are traditionally hunter gatherers.

Ajv58 may have had no farmer ancestry but Gok2 probably had around 30-40% hunter gatherer ancestry. So the D-statistics mean that Mesolithic European hunter gatherer ancestry is probably over 40% in much of northern and central Europe.

Skoglund et al. 2014 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1253448) created admixture graphs like Lazaridis 2014 (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf) with ancient and modern samples, and came to the same conclusions.

Four key admixture events shown by their tree


1. Gene flow from Denisovans to Australian aboriginal populations (48, 97, 98)
2. Gene flow from the MA1 lineage to Native American ancestors (Anzick1 and
Saqqaq) (13)
3. Gene flow from the MA1 lineage to Ajvide58, see main text and Table S13.
4. Gene flow from Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (La Brana 1) to early
farmers (Gökhem2 and Iceman) (18).


Their admixture graphs like Lazardis suggest early European farmers harbored a significant amount of basal Eurasian ancestry(44+or-3% for Otzi, 23+or-6% for Gok2) and the rest of their ancestry formed a clad with European hunter gatherers. Most of their European hunter gatherer-like ancestry, descends from near easterns who were closely related to Mesolithic Europeans. Gok2 though is estimated to have 21% more than Otzi, and that 21% extra is defintley European hunter gatherer ancestry, Gok2 may have been as much as 40% Mesolithic European.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-f0SM6wmjxww/U1lq1koSSwI/AAAAAAAAJks/_csA2iCuNGM/s1600/skoglund.png

In their fitted model Ajv58(not La Brana-1) is the best fit for the hunter gatherers that contributed ancestry to Gok2 and Otzi. This is because Gok2's and Otzi's hunter gatherer ancestors were probably from central Europe(for Gok2 also northern Europe and Scandinavia) and were more related to Ajv58 a Swedish hunter gatherer than to La Brana-1 an Iberian hunter gatherer. Similarly Lazardis found that Stuttgart is more related to Loschbour and Motala12 than to La Brana-1, because her hunter gatherer ancestors were also probably from around central Europe.

Skoglund et al. 2014 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1253448) fitted Ajv58 a Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherer as a mixture of MA1 and La Brana-1, like how Lazaridis 2014 (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf) fit Mesolithic Swedish hunter gatherer Motala12 as a mixture of MA1 and Loschbour. The predicted percentages of ANE(~25%) and WHG(~75%) ancestry in Ajv58 are very similar to what Lazaridis 2014 (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/04/02/001552.DC2/001552-3.pdf) predicted for Motala12(19% ANE, 81% WHG). It was already noticed by Laz that Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherers cluster very closely to Mesolithic ones because they shift more towards MA1 in PCAs than La Brana-1 and Loschbour do. La Brana-1 like Loschbour did not fit as having any ANE ancestry.

This PCA of the ancient genomes with modern west Eurasians, are constant with Lazardis's and Davidski's(Eurogenes blog) PCAs.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-d4Ac-Xpfgpg/U1oAIqvU8TI/AAAAAAAAAdg/hMM8a0mjIAg/w400-h348-no/Skoglund_2014_PCA_small.png

24,000BP Siberian MA1 clusters more closely with European hunter gatherers than with near easterns, which is probably because he and European hunter gatherers(some farmer ancestry for La Brana-1, and probably for the Neolithic Swedish hunter gatherers) are pure west Eurasians, unlike middle eastern specific ancestry which has a high amount of basal Eurasian.

The Neolithic Swedish farmers are much farther up towards European hunter gatherers than Otzi is. They cluster most closely with Basque, who are one of few modern Europeans who fitted as a mix of Stuttgart and Loschbour in Laz, and have the highest amount of WHG ancestry in southern Europe. One of the Neolithic Swedish farmers is shifted about as far up as central-north Europeans. In my opinion the Swedish Neolithic farmers had 30%- 40% WHG ancestry. They may have more hunter gatherer ancestry than Otzi and Stuttgart because they were the first farmers in Scandinavia.

The D-statistic above shows that MA1 is much closer to Lithuanians(arguable the most Mesolithic-like modern Europeans) than to Sardinians(the most Neolithic-like modern Europeans), like European hunter gatherers. He and StoraForvar11 are almost exactly as distant from Sardinians but La Brana-1 and the Swedish Neolithic hunter gatherers are less distant from Sardinians, probably because they had some farmer ancestry. MA1 has constantly been shown to be a close relative of stone age European hunter gatherers, but this is because he and stone age European hunter gatherers are the only samples known of pure or close to pure west Eurasians. Middle eastern-specific ancestry comes primarily from a source more related to European hunter gatherers than MA1 is, but its basal Eurasian ancestry makes them less related to European hunter gatherers than MA1 is.


Pigmentation

Ajv58 had ancestral "dark skin" alleles in SNPs rs1426654, like La Brana-1 and Loschbour but unlike Mesolithic Swede Motala12 who had the derived "light skin" alleles. Ajv58 also had ancestral 'dark skin" alleles in SNP rs16891982 like Loschbour and La Brana-1 but unlike Mesolithic Swede Sf11 who had the derived "light skin" alleles. So most Mesolithic Europeans had the ancestral "dark skin" alleles in those two SNPs, but a minority had the derived "light skin" alleles.

Early European farmers Otzi, Gok2, and Stuttgart all had the derived "light skin" alleles in SNP rs1426654, Stuttgart had the ancestral 'dark skin" alleles in SNP rs16891982, while Gok2 and Otzi had the derived light skin alleles in SNP rs16891982. "Light skin" alleles in SNP rs1426654 were probably fixated in early European farmers, as they are in modern Europeans and west Asians. SNP rs16891982 is also associated with hair color, one study claims that if a European individual has the ancestral alleles there is a 7x better chance that individual has black hair. That's why the derived alleles are less popular in southern Europe than in northern Europe, and less popular in the middle east than in Europe.

Maybe since these two "light skin" mutations existed in both European hunter gatherers and farmers but at differnt rates, when the two populations mixed their descendants had these mutations at the same rate of their farmer ancestors. Like i have said in this thread (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eupedia.com%2Fforum%2Fthreads %2F29789-Revised-Laz-Ancient-genomes-suggest-three-ancestral-populations-for-Europeans&ei=eaRaU42YAqSbygG2-4HwAw&usg=AFQjCNHIw3jMHNFjJin0Ba8GL14cW2df1g&sig2=i1AQuYJU7tYTRVcx48KCmg&bvm=bv.65397613,d.aWc) and other times the science behind human skin color is not very well known and it's impossible to say what skin color these ancient people had.

I think i may have relatives who are good proxies for the skin color of most Mesolithic Europeans had (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29811-23andme-reveals-I-have-relatives-with-Mesolithic-European-decended-dark-skin). My brown skinned uncle is 92% European, 8% Native American+African, and he is missing the Ala111Thr and Phe374Leu mutations like La Brana-1, Loschbour, and Ajv58, and he is missing other mutations associated with European light skin and are fixated in modern Europeans. He is probably one of few people who have a significant amount of European hunter gatherer ancestry(probably around 40% or more) and is missing many of the same light skin mutations.

Neolithic European farmers defintley had light skin, since they had all the mutations associated with light skin in west Eurasia today and modern Sardinians are pracituclley no differnt genetically are generally light skinned. I tend towards saying stone European hunter gatherers had dark skin, because it cant be random that they are missing nearly every mutations associated with European light skin that are fixated in modern Europeans. There are alot of possibilities though, maybe both hunter gatherers and farmers had light skin. Today it seems all light pigmentation in Europe correlates with WHG ancestry, so possibly the hunter gatherers had light skin and some light hair, not just light eyes.

I was hoping Skoglund et al. 2014 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/04/23/science.1253448) would help find the origin of high amounts of light hair in modern Europeans. In supplementary pages 36-37 they have a horrible pigmentation predictor, so that's disappointing. In my opinion light hair in Europe today is either mainly descended of European hunter gatherers, or first became popular in hunter/farmer mutts. Since 3/4 Stone age European hunter gatherers tested so far are missing the L374F they were probably very dark haired. Near eastern ancestry today in Europe correlates with dark hair, Sardinians are the most early European farmer descended modern Europeans and are also the darkest haired Europeans so early European farmers were also probably very dark haired.

Nobody1
25-04-14, 04:11
Seems as if the (PWC/Hunter-gatherer p.19) Ajvide58 is lacking the light-skin allele rs1426654/SLC24A5 being G/G like Loschbour and LaBrana - a contrast to Motola12 (A/A) despite being ~1000 years before Ajv58; Whereas Gök2 (TRB/Neolithic-farmer p.18) has the light-skin rs1426654/SLC24A5 (A/A) likewise as Ötzi and Stuttgart while Gök4 and the others dont have a result;

I would not call it as great as Lazaridis 2013 most of Skoglund 2014 it is consistent with all else and expected after Lazaridis and Rhagavan;

sparkey
25-04-14, 07:59
Great stuff, lots of new information, seemingly nothing inconsistent with what we've already been learning. Only one Y-DNA result this time: I2a1, which quite possibly could have been I2a1b* again if they had gotten more SNP results. It could also have been I2a1a, though, which is more typically thought to have been absorbed by, and spread with, the farmers.

Pitted Ware is interesting because they were hunter-gatherers living at a time when the Neolithic had spread right up next to them.

Knovas
25-04-14, 12:06
Good stuff, quite in line with other results as pointed above. The most revolutionary finding still seems to be La Braña's paternal line though, which has no equal until date.

Haplogroup I variants are showing strong presence during the Mesolithic in Northern Europe. One can speculate if C-V20 was restricted to Southern Europe, or if a population replacement already put haplogroup I in the scene regarding the new samples. So it would be interesting to test other Mesolithic individuals from both Northern and Southern Europe, and see if before 6000 BC, C-V20 shows up pretty much dominant, specially in Northern Europe. If that eventually becomes confirmed, it would indicate that the population replacement started from the North and then gradually to the South. There's also the possibility that haplogroup C-V20 is so incredibly old that already was a rarity during the Mesolithic, making very difficult to know when exactly its number decreased drastically.


Only one Y-DNA result this time: I2a1, which quite possibly could have been I2a1b* again if they had gotten more SNP results. It could also have been I2a1a, though, which is more typically thought to have been absorbed by, and spread with, the farmers.
I missed your interventions. I'd like to see that as well.

Fire Haired14
25-04-14, 13:34
Good stuff, quite in line with other results as pointed above. The most revolutionary finding still seems to be La Braña's paternal line though, which has no equal until date.

Haplogroup I variants are showing strong presence during the Mesolithic in Northern Europe. One can speculate if C-V20 was restricted to Southern Europe, or if a population replacement already put haplogroup I in the scene regarding the new samples. So it would be interesting to test other Mesolithic individuals from both Northern and Southern Europe, and see if before 6000 BC, C-V20 shows up pretty much dominant, specially in Northern Europe. If that eventually becomes confirmed, it would indicate that the population replacement started from the North and then gradually to the South. There's also the possibility that haplogroup C-V20 is so incredibly old that already was a rarity during the Mesolithic, making very difficult to know when exactly its number decreased drastically.

There was some Y DNA diversity in Mesolithic Europe, but autosomally they didn't change much from Spain-Sweden. La Brana-1 is just one sample i would not be surprised if La Brana-2 will turn out to have your haplogroup I2a1a1-M26. There are many I2 subclades in central-western Europe, i am sure most of them have been in western Europe since the Mesolithic. I have heard the Cheddar man(Britian, 8,000BC) is going to be retested, if they get his Y DNA haplogroup i bet it will be sometype of I2a1, probably I2a1c-L1294 because it's the main-type of I2a1 in the British isles today.

Nobody1
26-04-14, 07:03
One revelation from that study is that Gök4 who was previously (Skoglund 2012) considered a woman is actually a man (p.18); Gök2 app. remains a female;

Fire Haired14
26-04-14, 07:10
One revelation from that study is that Gök4 who was previously considered a woman is actually a man (p.18);

The reverse is true for Micheal Jackson.

I think you'd be interested to learn my brown skinned uncle is missing the Ala111Thr and Phe374Leu mutations like La Brana-1, Loschbour, and Ajv54 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29811-23andme-reveals-I-have-relatives-with-Mesolithic-European-decended-dark-skin)and unlike nearly all modern Europeans. He is also missing many other light skin mutations, some also fixated in modern Europeans. I suspect that he has a similar skin color as did Mesolithic Europeans and may be one of few(not literally, but you get what i'm saying) remaining Europeans with this trait.

epoch
26-04-14, 08:08
As with la Brana 1 I was surprised to find that a number of disease resistance genes have been found among hunter-gatherers. I somehow, in my imagination, have always compared the influx of farmers in Europe with the colonisation of North-America, where Indians are the WHGs and the whites are the EEFs. This analogy obviously works only on a higher level. But the difference in outcome is what is so surprising. Where American Indians - when defined as broad as possible - only make up 1,5% of the North-American population WHGs actually roughly make up one third of Europe's genetic material.

That is a colossally successful outcome of if you compare that to other hunter-gatherers around the world. The Indians were largely exterminated by the smallpox. One may be tempted to point that to their isolation, but a similar event happened to Siberian native tribes that are closely related to Indian. And similar things happened (and even happen today) to almost all tribes that cane into first contact with farmers. Small pox and even diseases such as common cold decimated (and continue to decimate) the tribes of the Andamans, the San and Bushmen, the last Indian tribes of the Amazones, the Negrito's, the Aboriginals and countless others.

Jared Diamond used this to partly explain the cultural dominance of the European civilization in his slightly flawed but highly readable book Guns Germs and Steel.

So, now we see hunter-gatherers that actually blended in. And consider this. The remaining American Indians are largely admixed with Europeans whereas present day American population is hardly admixed with Indians (a situation, mind you, that is quite different in Latin America). But after centuries contact WHG were still rather a pure breed and it was actually the farmers that mixed.

The European hunter-gatherers were a hugely successful breed, and the disease resistance genes play an important role in that success, I think

bicicleur
26-04-14, 08:48
There was some Y DNA diversity in Mesolithic Europe, but autosomally they didn't change much from Spain-Sweden. La Brana-1 is just one sample i would not be surprised if La Brana-2 will turn out to have your haplogroup I2a1a1-M26. There are many I2 subclades in central-western Europe, i am sure most of them have been in western Europe since the Mesolithic. I have heard the Cheddar man(Britian, 8,000BC) is going to be retested, if they get his Y DNA haplogroup i bet it will be sometype of I2a1, probably I2a1c-L1294 because it's the main-type of I2a1 in the British isles today.

Where did you get that?
Cheddar man would be interesting. Cheddar 10000 years ago. My bet would be I2a1b , Magelmosian culture , but neither L161.1 nor L621 , some extinct branch instead.
Both L161.1 and L621 split only 6000 years ago and those don't seem to have happened on the Brittish Isles, they immigrated later.
I2a1c-L1294 should be reclassified. Both I2a1a1-M26 and L1294 seem to share the I2a1-CTS595 mutation.
It would be interesting to know where and when CTS595 split : was only M26 connected to the neolithic or was it the whole CTS595 branch?

bicicleur
26-04-14, 08:50
I2a1a-CTS595 that is

bicicleur
26-04-14, 09:35
There was some Y DNA diversity in Mesolithic Europe, but autosomally they didn't change much from Spain-Sweden.

They all came from Southern France and Northern Spain and moved after the younger dryas ( 12.700 -11.600 year ago ) and even some 1000 years later, when trees started to grow again up north.
They had lived more than 10000 years in this small area of Southern France and Northern Spain, with lots of intermarriages.

The first wave up north from Southern France were hunting reindeer on the tundra 15500 year ago , but they got extinct after the second wave came with the first trees.
Few of them survived tough in the Norvegian fjords. They resurged 4000 years ago. They were I1. They were fishermen and sailors by then.

bicicleur
26-04-14, 09:56
Ancient and modern mtDNA are great evidence that Mesolithic Europeans at least maternally largely descended of humans who arrived in Europe over 30,000 years ago. There are no Y DNA samples from Upper Palaeolithic Europe, but the fact that Y DNA I is most diverse in Europe, 6/7 Mesolithic Europeans tested have Y DNA I, and that it is estimated to be 20,000-25,000 years old is great evidence that many Upper Palaeolithic Europeans belonged to Y DNA I. There are other ancient and exclusively European Y DNA haplogroups like C1a2-V20 which is what Mesolithic Spaniard La Brana-1 had, but also F-96 and maybe others i don't know of. Upper Palaeolithic Siberian MA1 belonged to Y DNA haplogroup R* and he was a pure west Eurasian, it is possibly that some Upper Paleolithic European belonged to Y DNA R, Q, or another descendant of P.


What mesolithic F-96 is there? I know of F-96 LBK neolithic.

epoch
26-04-14, 10:05
Mind you, the notion that North-Europeans have one third to two fifths of WHG genetic material brings a number of problems with it. This study specifically claims that farmers absorbed WHGs as they spread rather than the other way around. But that still leaves one of the problems that arises.

A while ago another study, I think it was also by Skoglund, claimed that the genetic investigation of Gotland Pitted Ware Culture showed that at the onset of the neolithic the population was completely replaced. [1] They showed tables of the rate of mtDNA in current day as compared to the baltics and the PWC finds to prove that point. However, when la Brana was published however, it clearly showed close relation to Northern Europeans rather than Iberians. How can both those assumptions be true?

I have been wondering about this a lot. Where has the mtDNA gone? Swedes have rather a high WHG rate, yet very low U5 (or U4) mtDNA. If Skoglund is right and farmers mobbed up WHGs we would expect rather a high number of U5/4.

I notices the Saami, who may autosomically not be a good proxy for WHG but clearly are decended from them, have 50% U5 but also 50% V. The latter is considered to be introduced by farmers, but the high incidence of V among the Saami is considered to be the result of a founder effect. This led me to thinks about the Ertebolla culture and the Swifterband culture, two cultures that existed alongside the LBK culture but archeological evidence clearly shows continuation and slow adaptation to farming. They kept pigs and cultivated barley rather than wheat. What if especially the Ertebolla culture became so successful that LBK and/or Funnel Beaker women married into the culture, and due to the same founder effect their mtDNA became the main mtDNA? We do know from DNA from pig remains that at first domesticated pigs - both from LBK and Ertebolla - showed great affinity to the Near-east while later local DNA prevails in both cultures [2]. This at least shows that both cultures had a lot of contact.

So, I think the lack of U5 in Sweden may be due to the success of local hunter-gatherers in adapting rather than their replacement.


[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html
[2] http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient-pig-dna-and-the-neolithic-transition/

bicicleur
26-04-14, 10:44
Mind you, the notion that North-Europeans have one third to two fifths of WHG genetic material brings a number of problems with it. This study specifically claims that farmers absorbed WHGs as they spread rather than the other way around. But that still leaves one of the problems that arises.

A while ago another study, I think it was also by Skoglund, claimed that the genetic investigation of Gotland Pitted Ware Culture showed that at the onset of the neolithic the population was completely replaced. [1] They showed tables of the rate of mtDNA in current day as compared to the baltics and the PWC finds to prove that point. However, when la Brana was published however, it clearly showed close relation to Northern Europeans rather than Iberians. How can both those assumptions be true?

I have been wondering about this a lot. Where has the mtDNA gone? Swedes have rather a high WHG rate, yet very low U5 (or U4) mtDNA. If Skoglund is right and farmers mobbed up WHGs we would expect rather a high number of U5/4.

I notices the Saami, who may autosomically not be a good proxy for WHG but clearly are decended from them, have 50% U5 but also 50% V. The latter is considered to be introduced by farmers, but the high incidence of V is considered to be the result of a founder effect. This led me to thinks about the Ertebolla culture and the Swifterband culture, two cultures that existed alongside the LBK culture but archeological evidence clearly shows continuation and slow adaptation to farming. They kept pigs and cultivated barley rather than wheat. What if especially the Ertebolla culture became so successful that LBK women married into the culture, and due to the same founder effect theit mtDNA became the main mtDNA? We do know from DNA from pig remains that at first domesticated pigs - both from LBK and Ertebolla - showed great affinity to the Near-east while later local DNA prevails in both cultures [1]. This at least shows that both cultures had a lot of contact.

So, I think the lack of U5 in Sweden may be due to the success of local hunter-gatherers in adapting rather than their replacement.


[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html
[2] http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient-pig-dna-and-the-neolithic-transition/

Swifterbant and Ertebolle exosted after Doggerland had drowned, that is were they came from and i suspect I2a2a M223 descendants.
Swifterbant had trading contacts with neolithics and adopted cattle breeding and some wheat cultivation but kept their own identity.
It seems to me they expanded after the neolithics with IE people. The same goes for the I1 fishermen from the Norvegian fjords.

Saami only arrived 2600 year ago, coming from the east. U5 and V may have been there before together with a male population now extinct.

Salbrox
26-04-14, 11:15
The greatest variety of I1 seems to exist in Northern Germany or thereabouts. If the origin of its spread was in Western Norway, one would expect to find diversity or basal subclades in greater numbers there.

epoch
26-04-14, 11:30
Swifterbant and Ertebolle exosted after Doggerland had drowned, that is were they came from and i suspect I2a2a M223 descendants.
Swifterbant had trading contacts with neolithics and adopted cattle breeding and some wheat cultivation but kept their own identity.

The DNA from pigs found at an Ertebolla site showed it to be of Near-Eastern decent, which points to trading as well. Mind you, Swifterband excavations actually yielded bones so I have the hope that someone tries to extract DNA from them.



It seems to me they expanded after the neolithics with IE people. The same goes for the I1 fishermen from the Norvegian fjords.

Saami only arrived 2600 year ago, coming from the east. U5 and V may have been there before together with a male population now extinct.

Saami are considered a mixture of a Siberian component and a local component, from what I understand.

bicicleur
26-04-14, 12:17
The greatest variety of I1 seems to exist in Northern Germany or thereabouts. If the origin of its spread was in Western Norway, one would expect to find diversity or basal subclades in greater numbers there.

Todays I1 all descend from only 1 tribe some 4000 year ago. A highly mobile tribe sailing the Baltic. It spread very fast around the Baltic and later also expanded south.

For their origin look at Ahrensburg and Fosna-Hensbacka culture. Ahrensburg people dissapeared when the forests started to grow north. Other people replaced them.

Fire Haired14
26-04-14, 14:55
The greatest variety of I1 seems to exist in Northern Germany or thereabouts. If the origin of its spread was in Western Norway, one would expect to find diversity or basal subclades in greater numbers there.

I know trying to figure out where I1 originated is very annoying. It was obviously spread by Germanic people(not counting Finnish-specific subclades and other rarer subclades) but is most diverse in central Europe, and Germanic people spread from southern Scandinavia and far northern central Europe. Y DNA of Swedish hunter gatherers have proven I1 probably came to Scandinavia in the metal ages.

Angela
26-04-14, 15:57
As with la Brana 1 I was surprised to find that a number of disease resistance genes have been found among hunter-gatherers. I somehow, in my imagination, have always compared the influx of farmers in Europe with the colonisation of North-America, where Indians are the WHGs and the whites are the EEFs. This analogy obviously works only on a higher level. But the difference in outcome is what is so surprising. Where American Indians - when defined as broad as possible - only make up 1,5% of the North-American population WHGs actually roughly make up one third of Europe's genetic material.

That is a colossally successful outcome of if you compare that to other hunter-gatherers around the world. The Indians were largely exterminated by the smallpox. One may be tempted to point that to their isolation, but a similar event happened to Siberian native tribes that are closely related to Indian. And similar things happened (and even happen today) to almost all tribes that cane into first contact with farmers. Small pox and even diseases such as common cold decimated (and continue to decimate) the tribes of the Andamans, the San and Bushmen, the last Indian tribes of the Amazones, the Negrito's, the Aboriginals and countless others.

Jared Diamond used this to partly explain the cultural dominance of the European civilization in his slightly flawed but highly readable book Guns Germs and Steel.

So, now we see hunter-gatherers that actually blended in. And consider this. The remaining American Indians are largely admixed with Europeans whereas present day American population is hardly admixed with Indians (a situation, mind you, that is quite different in Latin America). But after centuries contact WHG were still rather a pure breed and it was actually the farmers that mixed.

The European hunter-gatherers were a hugely successful breed, and the disease resistance genes play an important role in that success, I think

I think there's something to this in terms of the effect of the disease resistant genes allowing them to retain a genetic presence in Europe. (I have to check.Did the earliest sample have them? I think that might be important, because the 6,000 B.C.samples already had one T2b mtDNA among them. I've longthought that the Native Americans who survived did so because they had some proportion of European genes. That's true in Latin America as well, where many tribes previously considered to be 100% Native American have been found to harbor some European genes. Of course, in some areas of Latin America, many of the native had already discovered agriculture, leading to larger population numbers, and so were not as easily wiped out.

However, what is striking to me is that this all seems to show that after decades of research, new technology, and more sophisticated mathematical modeling, I seem to be back to where I started with all of this, with Cavalli Sforza. Isn't this all a validation of the demic diffusion model of the advance of agriculture? This is what the authors have to say...


"This suggests that Gökhem2 has additional hunter gatherer ancestry which is not present in the Iceman...


Finally, we tested for each modern day population in the SNP array data set whether it shared more genetic drift with Gökhem2 or Ajvide58. We find that
Swedish populations generally tend to share most genetic drift with Ajvide58 Table S14). In contrast, many central and southern European
populations do not show specific affinity to either group using this test, whereas populations in the Middle East, Turkey, Cyprus, and Armenia
show stronger affinity to Gökhem2. This suggests that the initial pulse of ancestry that is associated with early farmers was further diluted
in descendant populations in Northern Europe."


The higher numbers for WHG as you move north in Europe fit rather nicely within that framework, I think.

There's also the fact that because of the unsuitability of northern Europe for the initial Neolithic agricultural package, these WHG, minority ANE people were left alone for a very long time. It wasn't until crops were developed that would thrive in that envrionment that parts of Europe were neolithicized, and it was only with that changeover that their numbers increased.

It's easier to retain your genetic cohesiveness when no one wants the land you're sitting on, or at least is at the limits of what is desired.Even in central Europe,there was a climate collapse, and perhaps an environmental crisis created deforestation. All of these factors come into play it seems to me, as well as the fact that there was a later movement of peoples into Europe who were not part of the original encounter at all.

I think it also has to be borne in mind that we are talking abouti yDNA lineages that are very much minority lineages in Europe today. The "R"lineages have nothing to do with any of this. That change over happened later, and with an intrusive group, or at least that seems to be the case from the evidence we have to date.

Although I think we should be cautious about making broad generalizations, it's interesting that while you had a "farmer" mtDNA in the hunter-gatherers, you didn't yet have the hunter-gatherer mtDNA in the farmers. The same thing happened in the Balkans according to a prior study. In the earliest stages of the encounters, the mtDNA gene flow seemed to go only in one direction, although of course that changed later. Is it possible that it was the "farmer" women who brought agriculture to the natives? Of course, in the Balkans, they did also incorporate some I2a yDNA lineages. I wonder if that was because, given the climate in the Balkans, the agricultural package was even more obviously successful there.

Salbrox
26-04-14, 19:07
I know trying to figure out where I1 originated is very annoying. It was obviously spread by Germanic people(not counting Finnish-specific subclades and other rarer subclades) but is most diverse in central Europe, and Germanic people spread from southern Scandinavia and far northern central Europe. Y DNA of Swedish hunter gatherers have proven I1 probably came to Scandinavia in the metal ages.

I1 L22+ Z74+ is ancestral to both the main Finnish subclade (L287+) and one of the large Scandinavian subclades (L813+). The questions there are when the split happened and whether Z74+'s spoke Indo-European or something paleo-European before the split.

L300 (which is Z74- like P109 and L205) is IMO not important when it comes to the bigger story of I1 in the Baltic region. There's only a few individuals with it in southern Finland, and one who traces his ancestry into Sweden. I think it probably came to Finland with Swedes less than 1000 years ago and only shows up in greater numbers here because Sweden is undersampled in comparison to Finland in FTDNA projects.

Angela
26-04-14, 19:11
I did check the alleles for immune function for the oldest sample (not the 6000 B.C. ones who were living right alongside the farmers) to see if my thinking on the prior post was correct. I see two A's, one D, and two D*, or provisional derived states because of post mortem damage. The rest are all no calls, so I think it's difficult to say whether or not this old, pre-Neolithic contact European would have had the protective alleles. Perhaps it's still plausible that they were introduced through admixture? Some obviously had gone on even in terms of these isolated fisher/gatherers bands, since they already had a T2b mtDNA among them.

LeBrok
26-04-14, 19:20
Mind you, the notion that North-Europeans have one third to two fifths of WHG genetic material brings a number of problems with it. This study specifically claims that farmers absorbed WHGs as they spread rather than the other way around. But that still leaves one of the problems that arises.

From the study:

The study was not able to show whether the gene flow into the immigrant communities of farmers was the result of indigenous women or men intermarrying with farmers – or people of both sexes.
I'm still suspecting it was mostly by women. We need more samples from farmer communities to see some U5s or 4s.



A while ago another study, I think it was also by Skoglund, claimed that the genetic investigation of Gotland Pitted Ware Culture showed that at the onset of the neolithic the population was completely replaced. [1] They showed tables of the rate of mtDNA in current day as compared to the baltics and the PWC finds to prove that point. However, when la Brana was published however, it clearly showed close relation to Northern Europeans rather than Iberians. How can both those assumptions be true?

I have been wondering about this a lot. Where has the mtDNA gone? Swedes have rather a high WHG rate, yet very low U5 (or U4) mtDNA. If Skoglund is right and farmers mobbed up WHGs we would expect rather a high number of U5/4.
I wouldn't read too much by Mt or Y DNA frequency of today. It's been so long that ordinary competition between them, and drifting will mud the picture completely. That's why it is so hard ot make sense of it.
When we look at H1 and H3 map, that are suppose to be the farmer haplogroups, try to figure out how farming spread in Europe?
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-H1-H3-map.png
Right.
By this distribution map I would guess that H wasn't original farmer hg but was picked up by them in western Europe and then becoming successful spreading with them NE.

LeBrok
26-04-14, 19:26
I did check the alleles for immune function for the oldest sample (not the 6000 B.C. ones who were living right alongside the farmers) to see if my thinking on the prior post was correct. I see two A's, one D, and two D*, or provisional derived states because of post mortem damage. The rest are all no calls, so I think it's difficult to say whether or not this old, pre-Neolithic contact European would have had the protective alleles. Perhaps it's still plausible that they were introduced through admixture? Some obviously had gone on even in terms of these isolated fisher/gatherers bands, since they already had a T2b mtDNA among them.
Even though these European HGs are more isolated by their nature than farmers, I don't think we can expect such big immune disparity as per Europeans meeting Native Americans. After all they lived on same continent with farmers and there was always some contact and cultural exchange, to go through same infectious diseases gradually one by one.

LeBrok
26-04-14, 19:55
Although I think we should be cautious about making broad generalizations, it's interesting that while you had a "farmer" mtDNA in the hunter-gatherers, you didn't yet have the hunter-gatherer mtDNA in the farmers. The same thing happened in the Balkans according to a prior study. In the earliest stages of the encounters, the mtDNA gene flow seemed to go only in one direction, although of course that changed later. Is it possible that it was the "farmer" women who brought agriculture to the natives? Of course, in the Balkans, they did also incorporate some I2a yDNA lineages. I wonder if that was because, given the climate in the Balkans, the agricultural package was even more obviously successful there.
I would be afraid to claim which mtDNA had farmer origin unless we go to deep deep subclades. At low resolution level they all have paleolithic origin, therefore HG, and were already scattered around Eurasia in secluded communities.
If it comes to I2a becoming farmers, (judging by eagerness of Prairie Indians (HGs) to farming), I would expect rather late Neolithic/Copper Age for this to happen. In a way of very slow trickling farmer's genetic components to I2a HG communities.

We might have a good view on farmer/HG mixing from Cucuteni and Yamna cultures. There was obvious contact between both so different cultures, and most likely this fusion of both giving start to Corded-ware farming culture of early Bronze age. Judging by the speed of new papers coming and dna testing we might learn this in next 3 years. Maybe 6 giving economic status of Ukraine and Romania.

Angela
26-04-14, 20:13
Even though these European HGs are more isolated by their nature than farmers, I don't think we can expect such big immune disparity as per Europeans meeting Native Americans. After all they lived on same continent with farmers and there was always some contact and cultural exchange, to go through same infectious diseases gradually one by one.

I didn't expect it. Epoch did.:smile:

I do think, however, that the Neolithic lifestyle subjected humans to more pathogens, given what a filthy business keeping animals was in those days, and even now if the proper precautions aren't taken. One would expect, I think, that farmers who were descendents of people who had been practicing that lifestyle for thousands of years would have more immunity to those pathogens than hunter-gatherers being introduced to it for the first time. However, some admixture, even if it didn't occur at very high levels in the beginning, would have spread those immunity alleles to the hunter gatherers. That's why I was interested to see whether the oldest specimen, from a period before the first farmers reached the area, carried the same number of immunity alleles. The results are such that I don't think a conclusion can be drawn either way.

epoch
26-04-14, 20:29
It's easier to retain your genetic cohesiveness when no one wants the land you're sitting on, or at least is at the limits of what is desired.Even in central Europe,there was a climate collapse, and perhaps an environmental crisis created deforestation. All of these factors come into play it seems to me, as well as the fact that there was a later movement of peoples into Europe who were not part of the original encounter at all.


Dienekes had a link to a study which suggested that even in the middle of LBK area hunter-gatherers persisted [1]. That reminds me of a PDF I read that tried to assess the first contact between farmers and hunter-gatherers. It tried to make some estimates about the importance of Loess grounds for mesolithic hunter-gatherers. With no mesolithic camp site ever found on Loess grounds the paper tries to make a distinction between flint tools by hunter-gatherers and farmers. While the method seems a bit uncertain it stated that Loess grounds were hardly used by mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who were far more attracted to river valleys. So, that might be the second stroke of luck for European hunter-gatherers.

The only place farmers and hunter-gatherers might become competitors might be the largest river valleys, where the deposits of river clay may both attract wild life and be used as fertile ground. It may be no coincidence that Stuttgart showed HG admixture. The Rhine and Meuse valleys are not only places where there is evidence for violence between the group [2] but also the area where some form of burial practise continuity has been suggested [3].

[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html
[2] https://www.academia.edu/215068/Beating_Ploughshares_back_into_Swords
[3] http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPlenneis34.pdf

LeBrok
26-04-14, 20:30
I didn't expect it. Epoch did.:smile:

I do think, however, that the Neolithic lifestyle subjected humans to more pathogens, given what a filthy business keeping animals was in those days, and even now if the proper precautions aren't taken. One would expect, I think, that farmers who were descendents of people who had been practicing that lifestyle for thousands of years would have more immunity to those pathogens than hunter-gatherers being introduced to it for the first time. However, some admixture, even if it didn't occur at very high levels in the beginning, would have spread those immunity alleles to the hunter gatherers. That's why I was interested to see whether the oldest specimen, from a period before the first farmers reached the area, carried the same number of immunity alleles. The results are such that I don't think a conclusion can be drawn either way.
I was writing this in context that Farmers didn't cause extreme die off of HG in Europe, unlike in America.
However, if it comes to pathogens I would expect farmers to have more immunological mutations. They lived in more numerous and crowded communities by factor of 5-10, when compared to HGs, and by sheer numbers it will speed up mutations and combinations. Statistically speaking farmers should have had more "advanced", or complicated I should say, immune system than HGs. We can expect a direction of pathogen gene flow to be from farmers to HGs, and rarely reversed.

LeBrok
26-04-14, 20:37
Dienekes had a link to a study which suggested that even in the middle of LBK area hunter-gatherers persisted [1]. That reminds me of a PDF I read that tried to assess the first contact between farmers and hunter-gatherers. It tried to make some estimates about the importance of Loess grounds for mesolithic hunter-gatherers. With no mesolithic camp site ever found on Loess grounds the paper tries to make a distinction between flint tools by hunter-gatherers and farmers. While the method seems a bit uncertain it stated that Loess grounds were hardly used by mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who were far more attracted to river valleys. So, that might be the second stroke of luck for European hunter-gatherers.

I wouldn't be surprised to see small HGs communities lingering in secluded places deep to the end of Bronze Age. I forgot the name of the site in Germany where of HG/herding village, of 1 millenium BC, with all males composed of I2a and R1a type.

epoch
26-04-14, 20:37
I didn't expect it. Epoch did.:smile:

I do think, however, that the Neolithic lifestyle subjected humans to more pathogens, given what a filthy business keeping animals was in those days, and even now if the proper precautions aren't taken. One would expect, I think, that farmers who were descendents of people who had been practicing that lifestyle for thousands of years would have more immunity to those pathogens than hunter-gatherers being introduced to it for the first time. However, some admixture, even if it didn't occur at very high levels in the beginning, would have spread those immunity alleles to the hunter gatherers. That's why I was interested to see whether the oldest specimen, from a period before the first farmers reached the area, carried the same number of immunity alleles. The results are such that I don't think a conclusion can be drawn either way.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2014/01/mesolithic-genome-from-spain-reveals.html

La Brana 1 is 7000 years old. Perhaps diseases originating from the Middle- and Near-East or even European LBK area already had reached Iberia. However, the mesolithic HG from Sweden also seem to have at least some of these adaptive variants. I am not sure, as the information is thin. However, the confirmation of these genes is very interesting.


Moreover, we provide evidence that a significant number of derived, putatively adaptive variants associated with pathogen resistance in modern Europeans were already present in this hunter-gatherer.

Angela
26-04-14, 20:41
I wouldn't be surprised to see small HGs communities lingering in secluded places deep to the end of Bronze Age. I forgot the name of the site in Germany where of HG/herding village, of 1 millenium BC, with all males composed of I2a and R1a type.

Yes, I think that's what the Bollongino et al paper showed, although they might also have been a group that moved down from the Baltic at a certain point.

epoch
26-04-14, 20:42
I wouldn't be surprised to see small HGs communities lingering in secluded places deep to the end of Bronze Age. I forgot the name of the site in Germany where of HG/herding village, of 1 millenium BC, with all males composed of I2a and R1a type.

We still have fishing villages in Europe, don't we? The most famous one in the Netherlands is Urk, which used until recently be a small village sized island. The only thing is almost all males from Urk - which even if it is currently part of reclaimed land is still very much on its own - have Y-DNA haplogroup G2 :)

Fire Haired14
26-04-14, 21:06
What mesolithic F-96 is there? I know of F-96 LBK neolithic.

F* was found in LBK.

Angela
26-04-14, 21:12
Dienekes had a link to a study which suggested that even in the middle of LBK area hunter-gatherers persisted [1]. That reminds me of a PDF I read that tried to assess the first contact between farmers and hunter-gatherers. It tried to make some estimates about the importance of Loess grounds for mesolithic hunter-gatherers. With no mesolithic camp site ever found on Loess grounds the paper tries to make a distinction between flint tools by hunter-gatherers and farmers. While the method seems a bit uncertain it stated that Loess grounds were hardly used by mesolithic hunter-gatherers, who were far more attracted to river valleys. So, that might be the second stroke of luck for European hunter-gatherers.

The only place farmers and hunter-gatherers might become competitors might be the largest river valleys, where the deposits of river clay may both attract wild life and be used as fertile ground. It may be no coincidence that Stuttgart showed HG admixture. The Rhine and Meuse valleys are not only places where there is evidence for violence between the group [2] but also the area where some form of burial practise continuity has been suggested [3].

[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2013/10/ancient-central-european-mtdna-across.html
[2] https://www.academia.edu/215068/Beating_Ploughshares_back_into_Swords
[3] http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf34/DPlenneis34.pdf

Sorry, I missed this initially.

As far as Bollongino et al is concerned, it's a study whose data doesn't logically lead to its conclusions, in my opinion, or at least doesn't support the claims that have been made based on the study. The period in question, when the two groups were simultaneously in the same area, amounted to only a few hundred years if I remember correctly. It's just as likely that this group moved down from the Baltic shores.

Regardless, neolithic peoples are always going to out breed hunter-gatherers, a point made in the Skoglund study itself. It was only with the Neolithic that some distance was put between humanity and extinction.

I'm still leaning toward the idea that in the southern areas where the original Neolithic package was a good "fit", the hunter-gatherers were indeed "wiped out" very early as a distinct group, not, from what we can see in the Balkans through any kind of genocide, (death through disease we don't know, but I doubt it) but from being outbred and incorporated.

In central Europe that probably happened as well, if the population figures I've seen in prior papers are accurate, with only scattered communities of hunter-gatherers remaining, as was alluded to by LeBrok. In the far northern regions, the " Neolithic package" just wasn't optimum for a long time, and so they were left relatively undisturbed for a long time. I think it has to be remembered that even now Scandinavia, Finland, the eastern Baltics etc. are very low in population compared to the densities we see in central and southern Europe.

Then, there seems to have been a climate collapse in central Europe, or an environmental collapse, which caused a population collapse as well. We don't know how many people of which groups survived.

At some point, you have a new group of people entering central Europe, in unknown numbers, containing an unknown amount of EEF, WHG and ANE, to refer to the discussion on another thread. Later still, you have the migrations after the fall of Rome affecting central Europe and northwestern Europe, and even the Balkans later on, which could have brought more WHG and ANE for that matter.

That's how I think we have gotten to the current genetic landscape in Europe.

All speculation I know, but I think there's solid evidence for some of it. We may get more soon.

Ed. I don't remember the specifics of those two papers. It's been eight years, and my memory isn't what it was.... I'm going to glance through them when I have a chance.

Fire Haired14
26-04-14, 21:15
I wouldn't read too much by Mt or Y DNA frequency of today. It's been so long that ordinary competition between them, and drifting will mud the picture completely. That's why it is so hard ot make sense of it.
When we look at H1 and H3 map, that are suppose to be the farmer haplogroups, try to figure out how farming spread in Europe?
http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/mtDNA-H1-H3-map.png
Right.
By this distribution map I would guess that H wasn't original farmer hg but was picked up by them in western Europe and then becoming successful spreading with them NE.

Lebrok, do you know that one of the Swedish TRB farmer samples had mtDNA H1c like you? If H1, H3, and whatever H subclades in western Europe were native why does every study keep finding only U5, U4, U2, U8, and U*. H1 and H3 are not very popular in the strange mtDNA gene pool of LBK farmers but they are more frequent than U5(which we know took up the majority of hunter mtDNA) and there haven't been any U4 and U2 samples found in Neolithic central Europe period. The fact is that near eastern farmer mtDNA is dominate in Europe even if European hunter gatherer ancestry is over 50% for some northern Europeans like Finns.

epoch
28-04-14, 21:14
As far as Bollongino et al is concerned, it's a study whose data doesn't logically lead to its conclusions, in my opinion, or at least doesn't support the claims that have been made based on the study. The period in question, when the two groups were simultaneously in the same area, amounted to only a few hundred years if I remember correctly. It's just as likely that this group moved down from the Baltic shores.




If this study was only piece of evidence pointing to this I would be far more cautious. But there is the site of Ostorf, where hunter-gatherers lived in a Funnelbeaker environment, having funnelbeaker pottery - prehaps imitation - but living off hunting. Their mtDNA shows this:



Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 28a]
M
3200 BC


K
16224C, 16311C
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 8d]
M
3200 BC


U5
16270T, +12308 HinfI, +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 35]
F
3100 BC


U5
16270T, +12308 HinfI, +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 12a and 18]
M
3000 BC


T2e
2 samples 16093, 16126C, 16153A, 16294T
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK45a]
?
3000 BC


J
16069T, 16126C
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK19]
M
2950 BC


U5a
16168T, 16192T, 16256T, 16270T, 16302G, +12308, HinfI +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009



There is more archeological evidence collected by German, Danish and Dutch archeology that suggest continuation. Seen in this light I think the Bollongino article may simply add to the idea.

Angela
28-04-14, 22:54
If this study was only piece of evidence pointing to this I would be far more cautious. But there is the site of Ostorf, where hunter-gatherers lived in a Funnelbeaker environment, having funnelbeaker pottery - prehaps imitation - but living off hunting. Their mtDNA shows this:



Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 28a]
M
3200 BC


K
16224C, 16311C
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 8d]
M
3200 BC


U5
16270T, +12308 HinfI, +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 35]
F
3100 BC


U5
16270T, +12308 HinfI, +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK 12a and 18]
M
3000 BC


T2e
2 samples 16093, 16126C, 16153A, 16294T
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK45a]
?
3000 BC


J
16069T, 16126C
Bramanti 2009


Forager/FB
Germany
Ostorf [SK19]
M
2950 BC


U5a
16168T, 16192T, 16256T, 16270T, 16302G, +12308, HinfI +7028 AluI
Bramanti 2009



There is more archeological evidence collected by German, Danish and Dutch archeology that suggest continuation. Seen in this light I think the Bollongino article may simply add to the idea.

Thank you for providing the data. Interesting how much of what I would consider "farmer" mtDNA is in them.

I didn't mean to imply, by the way, that there were no remaining settlements of hunter-gatherers in Europe even at this late date. There obviously were. It was the number of such settlements which I was questioning, and the total number of people who would have been practicing this life style, particularly in central Europe. From what I remember of the archaeological studies that dealt with this issue, scholars have proposed very large numbers for the "farmers", and very small numbers for the hunter-gatherers, which makes sense, because that kind of lifestyle just won't sustain large populations, especially when so much of the territory is progressively, year after year, being claimed by farmers. The same thing has happened all over the world. I don't see anything in the European archaeological record that contradicts that. That means that the largest number of hunter-gatherers would have been found in the far north and the far northeast, and to some extent in the far northwest, which were not desirable or optimal locations for the "farmer" lifestyle of the time.

I think the genetic evidence supports that conclusion, especially if we factor in subsequent movements into Europe from the east and then from the north after the fall of Rome.

I'll try to see if I can find some of those papers that discuss the relative population sizes.

Just generally, it seems pretty clear to me, and apparently to the Skoglund et al researchers, although they don't specifically say so, that old Cavalli Sforza may have been generally correct, and that what happened in Europe was that there was a demic diffusion in terms of the spread of agriculture. The fact that the cline in terms of genetics is more south/north east than the south-east/northwest cline that explains the actual movement of the farmers and of agriculture itself has to do, I think, with those later population movements.

However, that's just my opinion as things stand today. I'm not one of those people who has a theory and holds to it no matter what. My thinking on all of this is very fluid. My thoughts on the matter change as new data becomes available. I'm still particularly interested, for example, in what the analysis of the mesolithic peoples of the Balkans will show, and an analysis of the earliest farmers of Anatolia as well.

epoch
28-04-14, 23:41
From what I remember of the archaeological studies that dealt with this issue, scholars have proposed very large numbers for the "farmers", and very small numbers for the hunter-gatherers, which makes sense, because that kind of lifestyle just won't sustain large populations, especially when so much of the territory is progressively, year after year, being claimed by farmers.

My idea is that both the adaptation of the HG's and the restriction of the EEFs to the most fertile grounds during the initial phase could have made those differences in population growth less spectacular. I have hunch these numbers were partly assumed because of assessments of other contact zones. In my current idea European HG's are an exception to that rule. Hence the importance of the disease resistance allels I suspect. And, yes: That is a bias.

I suspect we underestimate the resilience of the HG's because we misinterpret a number of semi-neolithic cultures as non-HG.



The same thing has happened all over the world.

Again, I think Europe is an exception.


I don't see anything in the European archaeological record that contradicts that. That means that the largest number of hunter-gatherers would have been found in the far north and the far northeast, and to some extent in the far northwest, which were not desirable or optimal locations for the "farmer" lifestyle of the time.

I think the genetic evidence supports that conclusion, especially if we factor in subsequent movements into Europe from the east and then from the north after the fall of Rome.

epoch
28-04-14, 23:55
I'm still leaning toward the idea that in the southern areas where the original Neolithic package was a good "fit", the hunter-gatherers were indeed "wiped out" very early as a distinct group

So, the idea would be that another semi-population replacement afterwards would bring back the WHG part into current day European genome, originating from the east? But I fail to see that if HG's population growth lost so badly from the farmers here, it somehow did not in those parts from which those population movements originated. Shouldn't these areas have experienced a far larger survival rate in order to enhance the WHG rate in Western Europa to present day levels?

motzart
30-04-14, 01:03
I am Y DNA haplogroup I2a1 (-M26, -M423). Looks like they found my Grandpa, always thought I was English but looks like I'm Swedish now. I'm also mtDNA H1c3, let me lock myself in a closet with some opium and do a little past-life regression. Hopefully I'll have an explanation for you guys soon.

Fire Haired14
30-04-14, 04:01
I am Y DNA haplogroup I2a1 (-M26, -M423). Looks like they found my Grandpa, always thought I was English but looks like I'm Swedish now. I'm also mtDNA H1c3, let me lock myself in a closet with some opium and do a little past-life regression. Hopefully I'll have an explanation for you guys soon.

There are none I2a1-P37.2 subclaees besides M26 and M423. I2a1a-CTS95, I2a1c-L1294, and I2a1b-M423 are the known subclades of I2a1-P37.2, M26 is one of three known I2a1-CTS95 subclades, the two less popular ones according to Eupedia are most popular in north-western Europe. I2a1c-L1294 is the most popular form of I2a1-P37.2 in the British isles, so i bet that's what you have. Pre-I2a1b has been found in Mesolithic north-west Europe, they had 7 of 9 defining mutations of I2a1b. Ajv58 a Neolithic Gotland hunter gatherer who is I2a1-P37.2, probably belonged to a brother lineage of modern I2a1b, or some rare I2a1 lineage that may or may not have been found in modern Europeans.

Since your M423- that means you don't belong to the same lineage as did the pre-I2a1b Mesolithic European samples since they were postive they had derived alleles in SNO M423 but were missing two other I2a1b defining mutations.

Your paternal lineage though is for sure descended of stone age north-west European hunter gatherers, like my maternal lineage(U5b2a2).

Angela
30-04-14, 05:40
So, the idea would be that another semi-population replacement afterwards would bring back the WHG part into current day European genome, originating from the east? But I fail to see that if HG's population growth lost so badly from the farmers here, it somehow did not in those parts from which those population movements originated. Shouldn't these areas have experienced a far larger survival rate in order to enhance the WHG rate in Western Europa to present day levels?


I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following you here. The Neolithic seems very clearly to have originated in the northern Middle East. From the last papers I've read on the issue, it probably started in the foothills near the Zagros mountains and spread from there. At some point, people carried that technology and their genes, which may, or may not, in my opinion, have been very different from those which existed in the Aegean and the southern Balkans, into Europe, sometimes over land and sometimes by sea. In the Balkans and Italy, for example, and if the EEF levels mean anything, in Spain, the hunter-gatherers were rather quickly absorbed. Since they were not very numerous, their impact on the genome was relatively minimal.

In Central Europe things were somewhat different. From what I recall, there was a pause while the "Neolithic package" was slightly altered for the new conditions. However, as time passed, more and more of the land was cultivated, and, as I said, the population numbers for the farmers soared. While some scattered HG settlements survived, I don't see how their numbers could have been very large. It just takes way too much land to sustain life by a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, and it seems they were basically reduced to fishing and gathering. There things lay for a while.

Then, at some point, there was a population collapse of unknown extent, caused by climate change and/or environmental degradation. It's at this juncture that the Indo-Europeans enter the picture, a group, according to the most popular theory, from the Pontic Caspian steppe, but whose EEF, WHG, and ANE proportions are unknown. I would be surprised, however, to learn that they were highly EEF. At any rate, as they moved into northern and eastern Europe, they could very well have picked up more WHG and SHG even if they did start out with more substantial levels of EEF. This group did, it seems pretty clear, as they entered these areas during the Bronze Age, affect the genetics of France, Spain, Italy and the Balkans.

Then, during the Classical Age, climate change which dried up their grasslands, and the panic caused by the arrival of the Huns pushed many peoples of a whole area from northern Europe to the steppes west into central Europe and eventually northwestern Europe. These would be, broadly speaking, the Baltic and Germanic and Slavic speaking peoples. They greatly impacted the genetics of central and Northwest Europe, and the Slavs impacted the Balkans, but from the evidence so far the genetic impact on Italy and Spain, and on France other than in the northeast and perhaps around the Alps with the Burgundians, was relatively minor.

I know that's all very broad stroke stuff, and I'm ready to adjust my view of it as soon as new evidence becomes available, but as things stand now, that seems pretty coherent to me, and in accordance with both the archaeology and the genetics.

If you think I'm getting things wrong, please point it out. I'm just trying to make sense of it all, just like everybody else.

motzart
30-04-14, 07:46
There are none I2a1-P37.2 subclaees besides M26 and M423. I2a1a-CTS95, I2a1c-L1294, and I2a1b-M423 are the known subclades of I2a1-P37.2, M26 is one of three known I2a1-CTS95 subclades, the two less popular ones according to Eupedia are most popular in north-western Europe. I2a1c-L1294 is the most popular form of I2a1-P37.2 in the British isles, so i bet that's what you have. Pre-I2a1b has been found in Mesolithic north-west Europe, they had 7 of 9 defining mutations of I2a1b. Ajv58 a Neolithic Gotland hunter gatherer who is I2a1-P37.2, probably belonged to a brother lineage of modern I2a1b, or some rare I2a1 lineage that may or may not have been found in modern Europeans.

Since your M423- that means you don't belong to the same lineage as did the pre-I2a1b Mesolithic European samples since they were postive they had derived alleles in SNO M423 but were missing two other I2a1b defining mutations.

Your paternal lineage though is for sure descended of stone age north-west European hunter gatherers, like my maternal lineage(U5b2a2).

The I2a1 from the Skoglund study didn't show up as +M423, I am probably L233 as this is the most popular in the British Isles. Unfortunately 23andme doesn't test for these subclades :/, one day I'll get a proper ftdna deep subclade test and know for sure.

I am very curious as to how the H (specifically H1 & H3) became the dominant mtDNA haplogroup among primarily Haplogroup I populations. Personally I would attribute it to "hybrid vigor", the WHGs that initially moved in to Europe up the Danube from Anatolia would have been a very small group possibly in the hundreds 45,000 years ago. This population expanded in isolation and then contracted with the coming LGM, not encountering other humans until the arrival of (likely) G2a bearers. It seems unavoidable that they would have been very inbred. This can be attested to by their accumulation of recessive genetic traits: blue eyes, (likely) blonde hair, and height. As can be seen with animals inbreeding leads to vastly reduced birth rates, the introduction of new genetic material would have lead to a population explosion from the hybrids and a decline of mtDNA U.

Either that or they snatched up mtDNA H from the farmers and refused to continue mating with their mtDNA U partners... :laughing:

Or possibly mtDNA H originated with the WHGs and these women were so super sexy that they were snatched up from the WHGs and spread all the way to siberia and iran by the farmers and indo europeans...:laughing:

Only deep subclade tests and more neolithic dna will tell us

epoch
30-04-14, 11:25
I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not following you here.

Sorry, I misread you: You stated farmers replaced HG is the south, rather than everywhere.

sparkey
21-05-14, 17:50
Genetiker has a detailed analysis of the Y-DNA findings (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/y-snp-calls-for-prehistoric-swedes/), along with some guesses:


The calls for Ajvide 59 don’t tell us which haplogroup he belonged to, but they do tell us that he didn’t belong to P, Q, or R.


The calls for Gökhem 4 tell us that he belonged to I2, but not to I2a1a or I2a2a.


The calls for Ire 8 tell us that he belonged to F, but not to P, Q, or R. He was probably I or I2.

The calls for Stora Förvar 11 imply that he was O3a1a, but I think that’s extremely unlikely, considering the fact that O3a1a is only found in the Mongoloids of East and Southeast Asia. The analyses of the Stora Förvar 11 genome didn’t show any significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture. The calls imply that Stora Förvar 11 wasn’t P, Q, or R. He was probably I or I2.

The calls for Ajvide 52 tell us that he was I2a2a1.

The calls for Ajvide 70 imply that he was F2, but I think that is also extremely unlikely. F2 is found in the Mongoloid Lahu people of China, and Ajvide 70 didn’t show any significant amounts of Mongoloid admixture. But the calls do show that he wasn’t I, P, Q, or R, so it’s not clear what he was. He might have been F*.

The calls for Ajvide 58 confirm the published finding that he was I2a1, and they also show that he was not I2a1a, I2a1b, I2a1d, or I2a1e.

In a follow-up post, Genetiker shows that the weird O3a1a call for Stora Förvar 11 is indeed probably a glitch, but is unable to show the same for the F2 call for Ajvide 70.

To me, Ajvide 59, Gökhem 4, Ire 8, and Stora Förvar 11 don't tell us a lot, although I agree that I2 of some sort is a good default guess for all of them. The interesting ones are the other three.

I think it's a bit hasty to declare Ajvide 52 as I2a2a1 with 100% certainty, because there aren't enough supporting SNPs to confirm that it's not a false positive. There's no confirmation that it is I2a2a, nor I2a2, nor I2a, nor I2, nor I, nor IJ. But I2a2a1 does make sense for the region and time period. I2a2a1 represents most of I2-M223, including the Cont, Roots, and Isles sectors. Interestingly, Ajvide 52 tested negative for the SNP defining the Roots sector (L1229), showing that if Ajvide 52 is indeed I2a2a1 as it seems to be, then it is in the Cont or Isles sector, or some outlier.

Ajvide 70 is genuinely interesting. Of all of the samples, it's the only one that we can confirm was NOT Haplogroup I. However, it definitely tested positive for P146 (defining Haplogroup F), meaning that it is downstream of F. Particularly interesting is the fact that it tested positive for F2's defining SNP, M427. And since it also tested negative for G, H, J1, J2a, J2b, LT, O, P, Q, and R, there aren't many candidates left for what it could have been other than some kind of direct F subclade. Really, other than F2, only F*, F-P96, and N seem like plausible alternatives to me.

Ajvide 58 is the one that was already confirmed as being I2a1-P37.2, and I had speculated earlier that it was probably I2a1b, or possibly I2a1a. But I was WRONG! Turns out that it is negative for all known modern branches of I2a1, except for I2a1c, the branch with the groups nicknamed I2a-Western and I2a-Alpine. So either Ajvide 58 is on the I2a-Western/Alpine branch, or it's some outlier in I2a1 that is unknown in modern samples.

Fire Haired14
22-05-14, 00:47
Genetiker has a detailed analysis of the Y-DNA findings (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/y-snp-calls-for-prehistoric-swedes/), along with some guesses:



In a follow-up post, Genetiker shows that the weird O3a1a call for Stora Förvar 11 is indeed probably a glitch, but is unable to show the same for the F2 call for Ajvide 70.

To me, Ajvide 59, Gökhem 4, Ire 8, and Stora Förvar 11 don't tell us a lot, although I agree that I2 of some sort is a good default guess for all of them. The interesting ones are the other three.

I think it's a bit hasty to declare Ajvide 52 as I2a2a1 with 100% certainty, because there aren't enough supporting SNPs to confirm that it's not a false positive. There's no confirmation that it is I2a2a, nor I2a2, nor I2a, nor I2, nor I, nor IJ. But I2a2a1 does make sense for the region and time period. I2a2a1 represents most of I2-M223, including the Cont, Roots, and Isles sectors. Interestingly, Ajvide 52 tested negative for the SNP defining the Roots sector (L1229), showing that if Ajvide 52 is indeed I2a2a1 as it seems to be, then it is in the Cont or Isles sector, or some outlier.

Ajvide 70 is genuinely interesting. Of all of the samples, it's the only one that we can confirm was NOT Haplogroup I. However, it definitely tested positive for P146 (defining Haplogroup F), meaning that it is downstream of F. Particularly interesting is the fact that it tested positive for F2's defining SNP, M427. And since it also tested negative for G, H, J1, J2a, J2b, LT, O, P, Q, and R, there aren't many candidates left for what it could have been other than some kind of direct F subclade. Really, other than F2, only F*, F-P96, and N seem like plausible alternatives to me.

Ajvide 58 is the one that was already confirmed as being I2a1-P37.2, and I had speculated earlier that it was probably I2a1b, or possibly I2a1a. But I was WRONG! Turns out that it is negative for all known modern branches of I2a1, except for I2a1c, the branch with the groups nicknamed I2a-Western and I2a-Alpine. So either Ajvide 58 is on the I2a-Western/Alpine branch, or it's some outlier in I2a1 that is unknown in modern samples.

Thanks for updating everyone, this is great news. I hope Davidski at Eurogenes is testing the Stone age Swedes from Skoglund 2014.

This is my interpretation.

Ajv59 had Y-SNP calls for very few SNPs compared to the other Stone age Swedes, and all we know is he did not have many haplogroups no one would expect him to have, except it's important to know that he certainly did not have G. It does seem likely that Gok4 belonged to I2(he defintley did not belong to G), but he wasn't tested for anything in between BT and I2, and not to subclades I2a1a-L159.1/S169.1, I2a2a-L622, and I2a2a1c1-L701. Ire8 certianly was a member of major non-African haplogroup F, and not to G. He probably had Y DNA I, but we know he did not belong to these subclades: I1-CTS11042/S66, I1a-DF29/S438, I1a2b1-Z2541, I1a3a2-S15301, I2a2a-L622, I2a2a1b-L1229, I2a2a1c2a2a1a-Z190.

Sf11 is defintley a member of major non-African Y DNA haplogroup F-P313. He was not tested for anything between F-P313 and O3a1a-DYS257_2/P27.2_2, and he wasn't tested for enough F-P313 subclades to figure out what subclade he belonged to. It is important to note that he was tested and was negative for many hg I subclades: I1-L121/S62, I1a2-S244/Z58, I1a2b-PF2805.2/Z2540.2, I2a1b-L178/S328, I2a1b-M423, I2a2-L37/PF6900/S153, I2a2a-P223/PF3860/S117, I2a2a1c2-Z161, I2a2b-L38/S154, I2a2b-L39/S155.

Ajv52's Y SNP calls are constant with him belong to I2a2a1-CTS616. This is very exciting, because I thought I2a1-P37.2 took up nearly all the hg I of Mesolithic west Europeans, and that I2a2-M423 spread with later Germanic and Celtic people in the bronze and Iron ages. I2a2 and I1 are probably native central-west-north European lineages that were adopted by Indo Europeans from eastern Europe during the metals ages, and may be connected with much higher amounts of WHG and ANE in modern northwest European farmers than in Neolithic ones.

AJv70's Y SNP calls are very surprising. It is safe to say he was a member of BT. He is positive for 1/2 hg C mutations he was tested for and positive for the one F mutation he was tested for and he is positive for F2-M427. H defintley did not belong to hg I, and It would be interesting if he belonged to C-V20 like La Brana-1 or exclusively European F-96. The one C call he did not have, La Brana-1 was not successfully tested for.

Ajv58 certainly did have I2a1-P37.2, and since he was negative for all the I2a1a, I2a1b, I2a1d, and I2a1e mutations he was tested for I think it is likely he had had I2a1c-L1286(defintley a remnant of northwest European hunter gatherers), or was apart of a lineage not found yet in modern people.

Sile
22-05-14, 01:16
Thanks for updating everyone, this is great news. I hope Davidski at Eurogenes is testing the Stone age Swedes from Skoglund 2014.

This is my interpretation.

Ajv59 had Y-SNP calls for very few SNPs compared to the other Stone age Swedes, and all we know is he did not have many haplogroups no one would expect him to have, except it's important to know that he certainly did not have G. It does seem likely that Gok4 belonged to I2(he defintley did not belong to G), but he wasn't tested for anything in between BT and I2, and not to subclades I2a1a-L159.1/S169.1, I2a2a-L622, and I2a2a1c1-L701. Ire8 certianly was a member of major non-African haplogroup F, and not to G. He probably had Y DNA I, but we know he did not belong to these subclades: I1-CTS11042/S66, I1a-DF29/S438, I1a2b1-Z2541, I1a3a2-S15301, I2a2a-L622, I2a2a1b-L1229, I2a2a1c2a2a1a-Z190.

Sf11 is defintley a member of major non-African Y DNA haplogroup F-P313. He was not tested for anything between F-P313 and O3a1a-DYS257_2/P27.2_2, and he wasn't tested for enough F-P313 subclades to figure out what subclade he belonged to. It is important to note that he was tested and was negative for many hg I subclades: I1-L121/S62, I1a2-S244/Z58, I1a2b-PF2805.2/Z2540.2, I2a1b-L178/S328, I2a1b-M423, I2a2-L37/PF6900/S153, I2a2a-P223/PF3860/S117, I2a2a1c2-Z161, I2a2b-L38/S154, I2a2b-L39/S155.

Ajv52's Y SNP calls are constant with him belong to I2a2a1-CTS616. This is very exciting, because I thought I2a1-P37.2 took up nearly all the hg I of Mesolithic west Europeans, and that I2a2-M423 spread with later Germanic and Celtic people in the bronze and Iron ages. I2a2 and I1 are probably native central-west-north European lineages that were adopted by Indo Europeans from eastern Europe during the metals ages, and may be connected with much higher amounts of WHG and ANE in modern northwest European farmers than in Neolithic ones.

AJv70's Y SNP calls are very surprising. It is safe to say he was a member of BT. He is positive for 1/2 hg C mutations he was tested for and positive for the one F mutation he was tested for and he is positive for F2-M427. H defintley did not belong to hg I, and It would be interesting if he belonged to C-V20 like La Brana-1 or exclusively European F-96. The one C call he did not have, La Brana-1 was not successfully tested for.

Ajv58 certainly did have I2a1-P37.2, and since he was negative for all the I2a1a, I2a1b, I2a1d, and I2a1e mutations he was tested for I think it is likely he had had I2a1c-L1286(defintley a remnant of northwest European hunter gatherers), or was apart of a lineage not found yet in modern people.

so you did not like my post

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29435-Light-skin-allele-of-SLC24A5-gene-was-spread-by-the-Indo-Europeans-(R1a-R1b)?p=432338&viewfull=1#post432338

and decide to avoid it

is there any difference with this one on this thread?

Fire Haired14
22-05-14, 02:06
Ajv59, hunter gatherer PWC culture 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: ?(E-, G-)


Gok4, farmer TRB culture, 5,050-4,750YBP Frälsegården Sweden: I2 (I2a1a L159.1/S169.1-, I2a2a L622-, and I2a2a1c1 L701-)


Ire8, hunter gatherer PWC culture 5,100-4,150 cal. B.P, Ire, Hangvar, Gotland Sweden: F(G-, I1 CTS11042/S66-, I1a-DF29/S438-, I1a2b1 Z2541-, I1a3a2 S15301-, I2a2a L622-, I2a2a1b-L1229-, I2a2a1c2a2a1a Z190-)


Sf11, hunter gatherer, 7,500-7,250YBP, Stora Karlso Sweden: F(G-, I1 L121/S62-, I1a2 S244/Z58-, I1a2b PF2805.2/Z2540.2-, I2a1b L178/S328-, I2a1b M423-, I2a2 L37/PF6900/S153-, I2a2a P223/PF3860/S117-, I2a2a1c2 Z161-, I2a2b L38/S154-, I2a2b L39/S155-.


Ajv52, hunter gatherer PWC culture, 4,900-4,600 cal B.P Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: I2a2a1-CTS616!!!!!!!!


Ajv70, hunter gatherer PWC, 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: Probably F, but maybe C(I-, G-, C-V183+, C-P184-,F-P146/PF2623+)


Ajv58, hunter gatherer PWC, 4,900-4,600 cal B.P, Ajvide, Eksta, Gotland Sweden: I2a1*(I2a1a-, I2a1b-, I2a1d-, I2a1e-).


Loschbour, 6,000BC Loschbour Luxembourg: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I L41+, I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I P389+, I2 L68+, I2 M438+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b M423+, I2a1b CTS8239+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS54985+, I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b2 L161.1, I2a1b3 L621-)


Motala2, 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I PF3742+, I L41+, I1 S108-, I1 L845-, I1 M253-, I2a1b CT1293-, I2a2 L37-)


Motala3 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I2a1b*(I M258+, I PF3742+, I2 L68+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-)


Motala6 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=? (Q1 L232- Q1a2a L55+)


Motala9 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=I* (I P38+, I1 P40-)


Motala12 6,000BC Motala Sweden: Y DNA=pre-I2a1b or brother lineage to I2a1b(I PF3742+, I M258+, I M170+, I2 L68+, I2a L460+, I2a1 P37.2+, I2a1b CTS7218+, I2a1b CTS5985+. I2a1b L178+, I2a1b CTS1293+, I2a1b CTS176+, I2a1b CTS5375-, I2a1b CTS8486-, I2a1b1 M359.2-, I2a1b3 L621-)


La Brana-1,~7940-7690YBP, La Braña-Arintero, Leon Spain: C1a2-V20(no reason to list results for haplogroup defining SNPs he was tested for).

I know my list is kind of sloopy, but it does show that there was some noticeable Y DNA diversity in stone age European hunter gatherers. 11/11 have BT, 9/10 have F, 7/9 have hg I, 1/8 have C1a2-V20, 5/7 have I2a, 4/7 have I2a1, 1/9 have I2a2, 1/10 have I2a2a1, 3/9 have I2a1b(most likely pre-I2a1b). 10 have been tested and are negative for at least one I1 defining mutations(there are 25) or were found to have another haplogroup.

Fire Haired14
22-05-14, 02:08
so you did not like my post

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29435-Light-skin-allele-of-SLC24A5-gene-was-spread-by-the-Indo-Europeans-(R1a-R1b)?p=432338&viewfull=1#post432338

and decide to avoid it

is there any difference with this one on this thread?

You are the first to show it to me, just i could not find the time to read it till now.

sparkey
22-05-14, 17:43
Great summary, Fire Haired. Two things I think are worth adding: (1) The F2-M427 result for Ajvide 70 and (2) The negative results for La Brana 1 for SNPs that are phyloequivalent to V20 in modern carriers.

Looking again at Stora Förvar 11, I wonder if he could be on the same branch as Ajvide 58. If we assume that he was I2, then I2a1c or I2a1* seem like realistic possibilities considering that he was neither I2a1b nor I2a2a. I wish we could say more about him, considering the age of the sample. Interestingly, the main modern I2a1c branch cluster, the one nicknamed "Western," is less than 3000 years old per Nordtvedt. So if these "maybe I2a1c" samples do indeed prove to be on that branch, they're not likely to fit squarely into a modern cluster.

FrankN
22-05-14, 20:23
I wouldn't be surprised to see small HGs communities lingering in secluded places deep to the end of Bronze Age. I forgot the name of the site in Germany where of HG/herding village, of 1 millenium BC, with all males composed of I2a and R1a type.
You mean the Lichtenstein cave? Located between the Harz mountains, a centre of bronze-age copper mining, and the valley of the Leine, a major pathway in the network of amber routes? Inside a hill that is crowned by the ruins of a 10th century castle which, with a bit of luck, you may spot from the A7 motorway that connects Hannover with Munich and Frankfurt?
6440
The cave where, next to some 40 skeletons, more than 100 bronze artefacts, amber and glass pearls, polished bones (possibly earrings) etc. were found? Plus the remains of several burial feasts, including whole beef legs that were obviously grilled in situ, and various kinds of grains and other field crops?
That wasn't HGs, that was the local elite controlling a major amber and metal trade route! At least four different I2b lineages, plus one R1a.
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf (in German)

motzart
23-05-14, 02:05
You mean the Lichtenstein cave? Located between the Harz mountains, a centre of bronze-age copper mining, and the valley of the Leine, a major pathway in the network of amber routes? Inside a hill that is crowned by the ruins of a 10th century castle which, with a bit of luck, you may spot from the A7 motorway that connects Hannover with Munich and Frankfurt?
6440
The cave where, next to some 40 skeletons, more than 100 bronze artefacts, amber and glass pearls, polished bones (possibly earrings) etc. were found? Plus the remains of several burial feasts, including whole beef legs that were obviously grilled in situ, and various kinds of grains and other field crops?
That wasn't HGs, that was the local elite controlling a major amber and metal trade route! At least four different I2b lineages, plus one R1a.
http://www.genebaze.cz/res/LC/LC.pdf (in German)



Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave (http://www.hoehlen-erlebnis-zentrum.de/), near Dorste, Lower Saxony [M1, M2, M7]
M
1000 BC
I2a2b
Ii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml); Z5REF (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=Z5REF&p=0) in Ysearch
H
3 samples
Schilz 2006 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Schilz2006)


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M3, M6]
M
1000 BC
I2a2b
Iii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
H
2 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield

Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M14]
M
1000 BC
I2a2b?
Iii? in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
H


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M4, M5, M19]
M
1000 BC
I2a2b
Iiii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
H
3 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M8, M16]
M
1000 BC
I2a2b
Ii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml); Z5REF in Ysearch (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=Z5REF&p=0)
U5b
2 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield

Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M10]
M
1000 BC
R1a1?
Ri in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
T2?


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M11]
M
1000 BC
R1a1?
Ri? in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
U


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [M9]
M
1000 BC
R1b
Rbi in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)
H


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F1, F12, F13, F19, F20, F21]
F
1000 BC




H
6 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F2, F3, M12, M15]
F
1000 BC




J*
4 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F14]
F
1000 BC




J1b1


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F5, F6, F10, F16]
F
1000 BC




T2
4 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F9, F18]
F
1000 BC




U
2 samples
Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F15]
F
1000 BC




U (2?)


Schilz 2006


Urnfield
Germany
Lichtenstein Cave [F4, F7, F8]
F
1000 BC




U5b
3 samples
Schilz 2006

FrankN
23-05-14, 10:25
Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave (http://www.hoehlen-erlebnis-zentrum.de/), near Dorste, Lower Saxony [M1, M2, M7]

M

1000 BC

I2a2b

Ii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml); Z5REF (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=Z5REF&p=0) in Ysearch

H

3 samples

Schilz 2006 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Schilz2006)



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M3, M6]

M

1000 BC

I2a2b

Iii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

H

2 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M14]

M

1000 BC

I2a2b?

Iii? in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

H


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M4, M5, M19]

M

1000 BC

I2a2b

Iiii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

H

3 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M8, M16]

M

1000 BC

I2a2b

Ii in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml); Z5REF in Ysearch (http://www.ysearch.org/search_view.asp?uid=&viewuid=Z5REF&p=0)

U5b

2 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M10]

M

1000 BC

R1a1?

Ri in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

T2?


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M11]

M

1000 BC

R1a1?

Ri? in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

U


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [M9]

M

1000 BC

R1b

Rbi in table 2 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/adnastr.shtml)

H


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F1, F12, F13, F19, F20, F21]

F

1000 BC



H

6 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F2, F3, M12, M15]

F

1000 BC



J*

4 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F14]

F

1000 BC



J1b1


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F5, F6, F10, F16]

F

1000 BC



T2

4 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F9, F18]

F

1000 BC



U

2 samples

Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F15]

F

1000 BC



U (2?)


Schilz 2006



Urnfield

Germany

Lichtenstein Cave [F4, F7, F8]

F

1000 BC



U5b

3 samples

Schilz 2006





Thanks for the update. The original study only classifies the Y-DNA as Y1 to Y7, and I must have picked up a "translation" that used an earlier version of the nomenclature, and did not dare to classify two of the R1 individuals (those two that you have as "R1a1?").

Anyway, the interesting point is that we have a bronze-age local elite burial that in majority contains presumed HG male DNA. I think that at latest with the diffusion of metallurgy, HGs were at an advantage when it came to identifying and exploring metal sources - they knew the rocky terrain, and also how to stay alive in such terrain. The advantage may already have started during the diffusion of agriculture, when it came to identifying and exploiting flint and obsidian sources. It became even larger, especially in Northern Europe, when amber and furs developed into major trade commodities
As fishermen, they were furthermore better positioned to engage in early medium- and long-distance trade, which mainly developed along the coasts and large river systems. Last but not least, experienced hunters should have been more experienced and better equipped to withstand violent incursions than early farming-herding communities.

Explorers & resource providers & tool-makers & traders & warriors = local elite.

polako
23-05-14, 11:25
That R1a from the Lichtenstein caves is most likely an extinct or currently extremely rare form of R1a-Z280.

MOESAN
23-05-14, 18:16
Sorry, I missed this initially.

As far as Bollongino et al is concerned, it's a study whose data doesn't logically lead to its conclusions, in my opinion, or at least doesn't support the claims that have been made based on the study. The period in question, when the two groups were simultaneously in the same area, amounted to only a few hundred years if I remember correctly. It's just as likely that this group moved down from the Baltic shores.

Regardless, neolithic peoples are always going to out breed hunter-gatherers, a point made in the Skoglund study itself. It was only with the Neolithic that some distance was put between humanity and extinction.

I'm still leaning toward the idea that in the southern areas where the original Neolithic package was a good "fit", the hunter-gatherers were indeed "wiped out" very early as a distinct group, not, from what we can see in the Balkans through any kind of genocide, (death through disease we don't know, but I doubt it) but from being outbred and incorporated.

In central Europe that probably happened as well, if the population figures I've seen in prior papers are accurate, with only scattered communities of hunter-gatherers remaining, as was alluded to by LeBrok. In the far northern regions, the " Neolithic package" just wasn't optimum for a long time, and so they were left relatively undisturbed for a long time. I think it has to be remembered that even now Scandinavia, Finland, the eastern Baltics etc. are very low in population compared to the densities we see in central and southern Europe.

Then, there seems to have been a climate collapse in central Europe, or an environmental collapse, which caused a population collapse as well. We don't know how many people of which groups survived.

At some point, you have a new group of people entering central Europe, in unknown numbers, containing an unknown amount of EEF, WHG and ANE, to refer to the discussion on another thread. Later still, you have the migrations after the fall of Rome affecting central Europe and northwestern Europe, and even the Balkans later on, which could have brought more WHG and ANE for that matter.

That's how I think we have gotten to the current genetic landscape in Europe.

All speculation I know, but I think there's solid evidence for some of it. We may get more soon.

Ed. I don't remember the specifics of those two papers. It's been eight years, and my memory isn't what it was.... I'm going to glance through them when I have a chance.

I don't know if this can help, but on the classical anthropologic side we have the Michelsberger culture, classified "néolithic", from 4300 to 3700 BC, for the most comprised between Elsass/Alsace, Wallonia, S-Netherlands and south-central Germany West the Rhine, where a big imput of 'mesolithical archaic' features were found among the skeletons spite the neolithical statute - surely a mix of 'cromagnoids' and 'brünnoids-capelloids' for the aspect, but where the more brutal asepct of the second ones was dominant - a remnant of this inlfuence remained yet among bearers of the Seine-Oise-Marne culture (néolithic too!) of N-E France between 3000 and 2000 BC... so a non neglictible autosomals heritage of HGs among agricultors could make sense for these ages - maybe the HGs gave more through the female mediation? after that, the I-E (Celts, Germans) erased in part this heritage but it is not absent today in these places - I say in part because I think Celts and Germans had had time ti mix a bit in N-Central Europe with diverse already mixed populations where HG's more than agricultors descendants were involved -

kamani
23-05-14, 19:42
Current Scandinavian dna is heavily influence by Funnel Beaker Culture. That's why I1 replaced I2a in Scandinavia. A hint is the story of Lactose Tolerance http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=8450036:

Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people (http://www.svenskmjolk.se/Templates/StartPage.aspx).
........
A long-held theory was that the mutation showed up first in Northern Europe, where people got less vitamin D from the sun and therefore did better if they could also get the crucial hormone (http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/vitamind.html) (it's not really a vitamin at all) from milk.
But now a group at University College London has shown that the mutation actually appeared about 7,500 years ago in dairy farmers who lived in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe, in what was known as the Funnel Beaker culture.

Being able to digest milk was a big evolutionary advantage for children over 5 years old; especially in countries that freeze 1/2 the year where farming was hard.

FrankN
23-05-14, 23:20
This paper puts the Swedish Mesolithic and Neolithic into European and Near East context, especially as concerns the expansion of agriculture and the associated stone tool industry:
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf28/28knutsson.pdf


A settlement-based production of blades occurs at Gravetian and Magdalenian sites. A whole chain of production is detectable in the assemblages of these sites involving local materials. But there is also a tendency to bring ready-made products from different sources, for example flint mines from the Cracow region and chert from Bavaria. In other words - already Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers had a certain division of labour and some longer-distance trade.

During the early Neolithic, a systematic exploitation of products from several flint, obsidian and other raw material mines in Europe seems to have started. (..) Production sites for daggers, axes and adzes appeared in several parts of Europe, and whole flint nodules were brought to central Europe from north-eastern flint sources in the Volhynian mountains. (..) Specialists such as flint prospectors and "middleman" or "agencies" were responsible for the production and distribution of goods. (..)Intensively used sites for the production of specialsed tools usually surround the known mines - we could call them factories. The use of these sources seems to run parallel with the use of gold and copper ores, which were extracted in other types of mines already in the Early Neolithic. We may speak of two different industries, in which the extractors were well aware of the possibilities of finding raw material deposits in Europe as early as Neolithic times. Specialists were surely needed in such types of enterprises. (..) In summary, a change of blade production and consumption is detected even in central Europe which relates to the spread of agriculture from the South-East. (..)

The situation in the Northern European contexts is different. Excellent, regular blade production is indicated in the Villingebaek phase of the Kongemose culture in Scandinavia (ca. 6.000-5.000 BC). The establishment of the Linear Pottery culture in Poland happened in the period corresponding (..). The excessive production of blades indicated in the newly excavated settlement of Tâgerup may be interpreted as production corresponding to new contacts and new needs expressed by these southern (continental) groups. (..) It is necessary, however, to mention that the production methods of the Kongemose blades are defined as endemic in Southern Scandinavia. They were produced by locals, although responding to needs expressed by groups living further south, who looked for new, exploitable resource.
In other words: The expansion of agriculture did not necessarily crowd-out hunter-gatherers. For early Neolithic Scandinavia (and that is most likely not he only place where this applied), it provided the opportunity to set traditional skills - flint prospection, collection and tool-making - in value, and receive other necessities or amenities (e.g. leather, linen clothing, pottery) in exchange. I would, btw, also guess that the contact across the Baltic Sea between Pomeranian LBK and Swedish Kongemose groups was rather initiated by the latter, as fishermen..

As concerns the "specialists" mentioned in the article, I am quite sure that outside the Mediterranean, most of them were from hunter-gatherer communities, i.e. typically Y-DNA I2* This is possibly the reason you find that haplogroup, often in rather homeopathic doses, almost everywhere where Neolithic mining occurred, with closely-related subclades spread as far apart fro each other as from Ireland to the Ural mountains.

Fire Haired14
24-05-14, 00:29
Current Scandinavian dna is heavily influence by Funnel Beaker Culture. That's why I1 replaced I2a in Scandinavia. A hint is the story of Lactose Tolerance http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=8450036:

Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people (http://www.svenskmjolk.se/Templates/StartPage.aspx).
........
A long-held theory was that the mutation showed up first in Northern Europe, where people got less vitamin D from the sun and therefore did better if they could also get the crucial hormone (http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/vitamind.html) (it's not really a vitamin at all) from milk.
But now a group at University College London has shown that the mutation actually appeared about 7,500 years ago in dairy farmers who lived in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe, in what was known as the Funnel Beaker culture.

Being able to digest milk was a big evolutionary advantage for children over 5 years old; especially in countries that freeze 1/2 the year where farming was hard.


Funnel Beaker farmer Gok4 had Y DNA I2, not I1. If modern Swedes are as largely descended of Funnel beaker farmers as you suggest they should be very closely related to Sardinians and Iberians. Their ancestry is certainly much more complex than Swedish farmer+hunter gatherer, and I think their mainly descended of Indo Europeans who arrived in the copper and bronze ages. Swedes and Norwegians have around 20-30% Y DNA R1a, almost all of it in the Z284 subclade which is Scandinavian-specific, and descends of Indo European Corded ware R1a Z282 which arrived in the copper age. They also have around 20-25% R1b, almost all being under L11 which arrived in west Europe around 5,000 years ago(probably with Indo Europeans), the U106 is definitely depended of from bronze age proto-Germans. Plus, many Y DNA I2a2-M223 and I1-M253 clades were largely spread by Germanic people. I1 probably initially spread in the copper age with non-Germanic people, but still it arrived after the Funnel beaker and PWC cultures. It appears that Ajv52 a PWC hunter gatherer had I2a2a1-CTS616, but still much of it in modern Scandinavians is probably from bronze age proto-Germans.

Nobody1
24-05-14, 07:24
Current Scandinavian dna is heavily influence by Funnel Beaker Culture. That's why I1 replaced I2a in Scandinavia. A hint is the story of Lactose Tolerance http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=8450036:

Somewhat less than 40% of people in the world retain the ability to digest lactose after childhood. The numbers are often given as close to 0% of Native Americans, 5% of Asians, 25% of African and Caribbean peoples, 50% of Mediterranean peoples and 90% of northern Europeans. Sweden has one of the world's highest percentages of lactase tolerant people (http://www.svenskmjolk.se/Templates/StartPage.aspx).
........
A long-held theory was that the mutation showed up first in Northern Europe, where people got less vitamin D from the sun and therefore did better if they could also get the crucial hormone (http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/vitamind.html) (it's not really a vitamin at all) from milk.
But now a group at University College London has shown that the mutation actually appeared about 7,500 years ago in dairy farmers who lived in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe, in what was known as the Funnel Beaker culture.

Being able to digest milk was a big evolutionary advantage for children over 5 years old; especially in countries that freeze 1/2 the year where farming was hard.

So far all ancient corpses (whether Farmers or Hunter-Gs.) were tested to be lactose intolerant; And that includes the Gök2 farmer from (TRB/Funnel-beaker) Sweden; Also this ancient corpse of late-Neolithic (Globular-Amphora/Kowal, Poland) was tested to be lactose intolerant;
http://polishgenes.blogspot.de/2013/12/the-globular-amphora-man-from-late.html

I will check but if anyone already knows is there anything known on the Eulau (Corded-ware) corpses in that regard? My guess is Corded-ware and not Funnel-beaker/TRB;

Fire Haired14
26-05-14, 03:16
Pigmentation of stone age Swedish farmers and hunter gatherers. (http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-prehistoric-swedes/)

Spreadsheet of stone age European hunter gatherer's and farmer's genotypes in pigmentation SNPs of the 8-plex and Hirisplex system, and SNPs of blue eye haplotypes. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1I8NhFE8j8TrmNm_fW9QN66TwIiyXE3ZuBZoDolVkPpw/edit?usp=sharing)

Hunter gatherers: Loschbour(6000BC, Loschbour Luxembourg), La Brana-1(5960-5750BC, Leon Spain), Motala12(6000BC, Motala Sweden) Sf11(5500-5250BC, Stora Karlsö Island Sweden), Ajv58(2,600-2,900BC, Gotland Sweden), Ajv52(2,600-2,900BC, Gotland Sweden), Ajv70(2,600-2,900BC, Gotland Sweden), Ire8(2150-3100BC, Gotland Sweden).

Farmers: Stuttgart(5100-4800 BC, Stuttgart Germany), Gok2(2,750-3,050BC, Gokhem Sweden), Gok4(2,750-3,050BC, Gokhem Sweden), Gok7(2,750-3,050BC, Gokhem Sweden).

Map of Mesolithic-Neolithic European hunter gatherer DNA (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zpAcd_2YNln8.kYMnaPX2WqH0)

4/4 stone age European hunter gatherers(La Brana-1, Loschbour, Motala12, Ajv58) tested so far have G/G in rs12913832 which means they had light eyes, 3/3(La Brana-1, Loschbour, Motala12) have blue eye alleles in 7 SNPs associated with eye color(labeled BEH), and 2/3(Loschbour, LA Brana-1, not Motala12) have the h1 haplotype which has been observed in 97% of modern blue eyed people. According to the 8-plex system Gok2 and Ajv58 had blue eyes, because they had G/G in rs12913832 and T/T in rs12896399, Loschbour though had G/G alleles in SNP rs12896399. Most stone age European hunter gatherers probably had light eyes, because 4/4 tested so far are light eyed, the samples come from all over western Europe(Spain, Luxembourg, south Sweden, Gotland Sweden), and they are all from differnt archaeological sites(not family members).

Stuttgart like Otzi(~5300BP copper age farmer, born in northern Italy) had A/A alleles in SNP rs12913832 which means they most likely had brown eyes, according to the 8-plex system since Stuttgart had C/C alleles in SNP rs16891982 she had brown eyes. Gok2 who was also a farmer had light eyes which is probably because he had an estimated 21% more hunter gatherer ancestry than Otzi, and probably around 40% overall hunter gatherer ancestry(around as much as modern Basque and central Europeans). It is safe to assume the Levante farmer ancestor's of early European farmers were mainly dark eyed, because their blood in Europe today correlates with dark eyes.

All of the stone age European farmer and hunter gatherer samples are constant with having dark hair, and it is very unlikely any had a blonde or red tone. The hunter gatherers were probably uniformly dark haired, because 3/4 have C/C alleles in SNP rs16891982, and C/C or A/C alleles is supposed to give modern Europeans a 7x better chance of having black hair. Today in Europe and the middle east the distribution of C/C or A/C alleles correlate with dark hair. Motala12 probably had rs16891982 G/G and Ajv52 probably had rs16891982 C/C, because Motala12 had rs2877 A/A and Ajv52 had rs2877 C/C. If we assume that is true 4/6 European hunter gatherers so far have rs16891982 C/C.

Farmers Gok2 and Otzi had rs16891982 G/G, and Stuttgart had rs16891982 C/C. Probably around 70-85% of early European farmers had rs16891982 G/G, because that is around what modern Sardinians have, who are almost no differnt genetically to Otzi and Stuttgart. This means there is a better chance stone European farmers had light hair than hunter gatherers. The farmers were probably also almost entirely dark haired, because Sardinians are the darkest haired people in modern Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?33038-Are-Northern-Italians-really-25-black-haired-(Sardinian-50-)).

1/4(Motala12 had it, Loschbour, La Brana-1, and Ajv58 did not) European hunter gatherers have rs1426654 A/A and 3/3 European farmers have rs1426654 A/A, which lightens skin and is fixated in modern west Asians and Europeans. 1/4 European hunter gatherers have rs16891982 G/G(rest have C/C) and 2/3 European farmers have rs16891982 G/G, which lightens skin(the ancestral form darkens hair), is fixated in northern Europeans, anywhere from 70-90% in southern Europe(It really depends where you go), and 40-50% in the middle east.

1/5 European hunter gatherers have rs28777(directly connected with rs16891982) A/A and 1/2 European farmers have rs28777 A/A(the other C/C), which is probably distributed similarly to rs16891982 G/G, and nearly fixated in CEU. 0/4 European hunter gatherers have rs1042602 A/C or A/A and 1/2 European farmers have rs1042602 C/A(The other had C/C), which are 40-50% in Europeans and middle easterns. 0/1(La Brana-1) European hunter gatherers have rs1126809 A/A or A/G, which are around 40% in CEU. 0/5 European hunter gatherers have rs1393350 A/G or A/A and 2/2 European farmers have rs1393350 G/G, which are around 30-40% in CEU. 0/4 European hunter gatherers have rs12821256 C/C or C/T and 2/2 European farmers have rs12821256 T/T, which are around 30% in CEU. 0/1(La Brana-1) of rs35395 C/C or C/T, which are fixated in CEU. 1/3 European hunter gatherers have rs2470102 A/A and 1/1(Stuttgart) European farmers have rs2470102 A/A, which is nearly fixated in CEU.

The info above tells us that European farmers had a much higher percentages of mutations associated with light skin in modern Europeans(for most or all also middle easterns and south Asians), than European hunter gatherers. My best guess is that European hunter gatherers had sometype of dark skin tone, because it can't be random that they are missing multiple light skin mutations which are fixated or popular in modern Europeans. These light skin mutations were probably selected for multiple times in Europe during and after the Neolithic.

Fire Haired14
26-05-14, 04:05
I almost forgot, Ajv58 had rs12203592 C/T, like Loschbour(T/T), Motala12(T/T), and La Brana-1(T/C), this had to do something to hunter gatherer's pigmentation since it seems they were fixed for it. Unlike light eyes it did not survive well in modern Europeans, Gok2 had hunter gatherer light eyes but rs12203592 C/C so maybe it is more recessive or something than mutations for light eyes.

Motala12 is interestingly constant with having light skin. Unlike Loschbour, La Brana-1, and Ajv58 he has rs2470102 A/A(fixated in modern Europeans), rs28777 A/A(fixated in modern Europeans), and rs1426654 A/A(fixated in modern Europeans). The fact he has so many light skin mutations Loschbour, La Brana-1, and Ajv58 did not, may mean he really did have a lighter skin tone than most of his fellow hunter gatherers.

Known light skin mutations were selected for in European's ancestors, and those mutations were more popular in their farmer ancestors than hunter gatherer. So it doesn't make sense to say modern European light skin is descended of their hunter gatherer ancestors. A good question is why don't middle easterns have skin as light as Europeans if they mainly have the same mutations, and early Europeans primarily descended from the same source as do modern middle easterns. I still think the answer is unknown European light skin mutations, which probably descend from the farmers.

Greying Wanderer
31-05-14, 07:38
As with la Brana 1 I was surprised to find that a number of disease resistance genes have been found among hunter-gatherers. I somehow, in my imagination, have always compared the influx of farmers in Europe with the colonisation of North-America, where Indians are the WHGs and the whites are the EEFs. This analogy obviously works only on a higher level. But the difference in outcome is what is so surprising. Where American Indians - when defined as broad as possible - only make up 1,5% of the North-American population WHGs actually roughly make up one third of Europe's genetic material.

That is a colossally successful outcome of if you compare that to other hunter-gatherers around the world. The Indians were largely exterminated by the smallpox. One may be tempted to point that to their isolation, but a similar event happened to Siberian native tribes that are closely related to Indian. And similar things happened (and even happen today) to almost all tribes that cane into first contact with farmers. Small pox and even diseases such as common cold decimated (and continue to decimate) the tribes of the Andamans, the San and Bushmen, the last Indian tribes of the Amazones, the Negrito's, the Aboriginals and countless others.

Jared Diamond used this to partly explain the cultural dominance of the European civilization in his slightly flawed but highly readable book Guns Germs and Steel.

So, now we see hunter-gatherers that actually blended in. And consider this. The remaining American Indians are largely admixed with Europeans whereas present day American population is hardly admixed with Indians (a situation, mind you, that is quite different in Latin America). But after centuries contact WHG were still rather a pure breed and it was actually the farmers that mixed.

The European hunter-gatherers were a hugely successful breed, and the disease resistance genes play an important role in that success, I think

One possibility might be an initial die-off from first contact but because - unlike North America - the farmers couldn't spread everywhere the surviving HGs had time to bounce back (at least in some regions).

Greying Wanderer
31-05-14, 07:48
Mind you, the notion that North-Europeans have one third to two fifths of WHG genetic material brings a number of problems with it. This study specifically claims that farmers absorbed WHGs as they spread rather than the other way around. But that still leaves one of the problems that arises.

A while ago another study, I think it was also by Skoglund, claimed that the genetic investigation of Gotland Pitted Ware Culture showed that at the onset of the neolithic the population was completely replaced. [1] They showed tables of the rate of mtDNA in current day as compared to the baltics and the PWC finds to prove that point. However, when la Brana was published however, it clearly showed close relation to Northern Europeans rather than Iberians. How can both those assumptions be true?

I have been wondering about this a lot. Where has the mtDNA gone? Swedes have rather a high WHG rate, yet very low U5 (or U4) mtDNA. If Skoglund is right and farmers mobbed up WHGs we would expect rather a high number of U5/4.

I notices the Saami, who may autosomically not be a good proxy for WHG but clearly are decended from them, have 50% U5 but also 50% V. The latter is considered to be introduced by farmers, but the high incidence of V among the Saami is considered to be the result of a founder effect. This led me to thinks about the Ertebolla culture and the Swifterband culture, two cultures that existed alongside the LBK culture but archeological evidence clearly shows continuation and slow adaptation to farming. They kept pigs and cultivated barley rather than wheat. What if especially the Ertebolla culture became so successful that LBK and/or Funnel Beaker women married into the culture, and due to the same founder effect their mtDNA became the main mtDNA? We do know from DNA from pig remains that at first domesticated pigs - both from LBK and Ertebolla - showed great affinity to the Near-east while later local DNA prevails in both cultures [2]. This at least shows that both cultures had a lot of contact.

So, I think the lack of U5 in Sweden may be due to the success of local hunter-gatherers in adapting rather than their replacement.


[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html
[2] http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient-pig-dna-and-the-neolithic-transition/

I think that's it personally. The HGs in the far north somehow or other (Cucuteni influence, megalith culture influence, LBK influence) adapted a hybrid hunting / herding / farming culture that gave them the population density to compete successfully. I wonder if the transition to farmer mtdna within that population may have been the result of selection in place with the farmer mtdna bringing with it some particular advantage.

Fire Haired14
31-05-14, 08:36
I think that's it personally. The HGs in the far north somehow or other (Cucuteni influence, megalith culture influence, LBK influence) adapted a hybrid hunting / herding / farming culture that gave them the population density to compete successfully. I wonder if the transition to farmer mtdna within that population may have been the result of selection in place with the farmer mtdna bringing with it some particular advantage.

It is a horrible assumption that northern Europeans descend 100% from the farmers and hunter gatherers that lived in their region. There are loads of evidence that there has been large population replacement in northwest Europe, by Indo Europeans from east Europe, therefore most of for example Irish's Mesolithic ancestors probably lived in Russia.

mtDNA and Y DNA doesn't help to explain modern European's high amount of WHG-ANE ancestry. Latvians for example are around 70% WHG+ANE and 55% WHG, yet less than 10% have Y DNA I and less than 20% have mtDNA U5, U4, or U2. The WHG and ANE percentages though are probably accurate. We do know that most northern Europeans are more related to prehistoric European hunter gatherers than to European farmers, so there is no way they have more farmer than hunter ancestry.

Fire Haired14
31-05-14, 10:29
Pigmentation SNPs of MA1 and AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-malta-1-and-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that MA1 had dark eyes unlike Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gatherers. The results are constant with MA1 and AG2 having dark hair, but there are not enough SNPs to be for sure.

AG2 had skin lighting mutation rs1426654 A/A, like Motala12, Stuttgart, Otzi, Gok2, and bronze-iron age Siberian Indo Iranians, proving this mutation is very ancient in west Eurasians. AG2 having this mutation is constant with a recent study which estimated this mutation to be 22,000-28,000 years old. I think it is older though because it existed in WHG, ANE, and middle easterns(brother to WHG+basal Eurasian), who are the three main ancestral groups of modern west Eurasians.

MA1 had rs1426654 G/G, like most European hunter gatherer samples, and is evidence the majority of WHG-ANE hunter gatherers did. MA1 had rs28777 C/C so he most likely had rs16891982 C/C, like most European hunter gatherer samples. MA1 had rs12203592 C/C, unlike all the European hunter gatherer samples who had at least one T alleles, meaning it may be a WHG-specific trait. MA1 and AG2 are evidence stone age European hunter gatherer's alleles in known skin pigmentation SNPs hadn't changed for some 30,000 years. It would be interesting to see what alleles AG2 had in blue eye haplotypes. He may have had light eyes like the European hunter gatherers but i doubt it, because native Americans, south Asians, and Siberians have a high amount of ANE ancestry and are fixated for brown eyes.

Y SNP calls for AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/y-snp-calls-for-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that he had hg F, and probably P. He has the only P mutation he was tested for, P-L781/PF5875/YSC0000255. He is Q1a1-F1215+, but was not tested for anything in between P and Q1a1. AG2 is R1-P245/PF6117+ and R1a1a1-Page7+, but he was R-P224/PF6050-, R1-P286/PF6136-, and R1a1-L122/M448/PF6237-.

Now i understand why others besides Geneticker who did the same tests said he belonged to either R1a1 or Q1a.

AG2 confirms that hg P was popular and probably largely spread with ANE populations.

P was all over Eurasia before the Neolithic. R1b and probably R1a were in west Asia and or central Asia-eastern Europe, R2 was in south Asia, Q was in south Asia-central Asia-Siberia-and the Americas, and P* lineages were in south Asia.

Greying Wanderer
31-05-14, 15:50
It is a horrible assumption that northern Europeans descend 100% from the farmers and hunter gatherers that lived in their region. There are loads of evidence that there has been large population replacement in northwest Europe, by Indo Europeans from east Europe, therefore most of for example Irish's Mesolithic ancestors probably lived in Russia.

mtDNA and Y DNA doesn't help to explain modern European's high amount of WHG-ANE ancestry. Latvians for example are around 70% WHG+ANE and 55% WHG, yet less than 10% have Y DNA I and less than 20% have mtDNA U5, U4, or U2. The WHG and ANE percentages though are probably accurate. We do know that most northern Europeans are more related to prehistoric European hunter gatherers than to European farmers, so there is no way they have more farmer than hunter ancestry.

It's a good thing I'm not making that assumption then.


I'm saying the northern HGs were influenced by the Atlantic megalithic farmers (more like traders?) along the Atlantic coast in the west (creating Funnelbeaker) and by Cucuteni (creating Globular Amphora) in the east, merging later into Corded Ware. In both cases I think the **form** of farming was adapted to the northern forests i.e. a hybrid hunting / herding form probably semi-nomadic using slash & burn to create temporary grazing and crop land and because that hybrid form of farming was closer to the traditional HG lifestyle that made it easier for the HGs to adapt to it - hence the survival of a much larger proportion of HG dna in the north.


If that is correct then the next question becomes why did the proportions of farmer/HG mtdna change (as it seems to have done). I'd suggest there was bride trading and the farmer females carried some advantageous alleles that allowed selection in place.


nb I also think there needs to be a clear distinction between northern Europe and northwestern Europe. I think ydna I mostly survived and expanded in the region centered around Scandinavia & Baltic and then moved to Britain & Ireland with the Celts/Saxons/Vikings/Normans. Before that I think the Britain & Ireland story was mostly part of the maritime Atlantic story.

MOESAN
26-07-14, 01:18
I post here because I don't find justnow a more adapted thread : it concerns as autosomals as Y-DNAas mt-Dna as ancient DNA thread (all things are tied one to another)


The almost proof of the crossed demicorigin of some western neolithical settlements (I think in cousins of'Loschbour' introgression), I saw in last Neolitic cultures asMichelsberg (and Altheim) based upon archeological physicalanthropology, is in the different organization of some of theirsettlements and the bigger part taken by the wild hunted animals('Jagdwild') among the animals bones remnants found there -
I know we can argument and propose someother causes like the type of ground or territory occupied but itseems not too serious because they occuped also the same ancientplaces sometimes -
Jan Steffens, in 'Bedeutung der Jagdin der Trichterbecher Kultur' (2005,Adobe Reader) studied the distributions of wild and tame animalsremnants in N-Germany, N-Poland and S-Scandinavia : he foundvery important differences (highwild a-levels :South Sweden, N-N-Sjaelland in De,amrk, Westphaly, Mecklemburg andSchleswig (partly), level : other places of Schlesvig orDenmark, lowwilda-levels : a lot of places in Jutland/Jylland and themiddle-Weser and Saale riviers, Bohemia and Poland – he attributedthese differences to different ecology in places but also todifferent background with more or less late-mesolithical people amongthe populations... - I think the important Long-Barrows element amongcoastal North Sea and South-Scandinavia, important element too in theFunnelbeaker cristallization, countained a weighty component ofprevioulsy Hunters-Gatherers of diverse places in Northern andAtlantic Europe, and that even at first, they were less « agricole »than the Linear Bank Ceramic and even than the Cardials – just abet – the less « hunter » were the more southern as awhole, came from South-East (rivers from Bohemia) and someof theJutland and Fyn island (here the « invaders » theory fromSouth is less valuable than an ecologic difficulty for agriculture, Ithink -

FrankN
26-07-14, 12:24
I post here because I don't find justnow a more adapted thread : it concerns as autosomals as Y-DNAas mt-Dna as ancient DNA thread (all things are tied one to another)


The almost proof of the crossed demicorigin of some western neolithical settlements (I think in cousins of'Loschbour' introgression), I saw in last Neolitic cultures asMichelsberg (and Altheim) based upon archeological physicalanthropology, is in the different organization of some of theirsettlements and the bigger part taken by the wild hunted animals('Jagdwild') among the animals bones remnants found there -
I know we can argument and propose someother causes like the type of ground or territory occupied but itseems not too serious because they occuped also the same ancientplaces sometimes -
Jan Steffens, in 'Bedeutung der Jagdin der Trichterbecher Kultur' (2005,Adobe Reader) studied the distributions of wild and tame animalsremnants in N-Germany, N-Poland and S-Scandinavia : he foundvery important differences (highwild a-levels :South Sweden, N-N-Sjaelland in De,amrk, Westphaly, Mecklemburg andSchleswig (partly), level : other places of Schlesvig orDenmark, lowwilda-levels : a lot of places in Jutland/Jylland and themiddle-Weser and Saale riviers, Bohemia and Poland – he attributedthese differences to different ecology in places but also todifferent background with more or less late-mesolithical people amongthe populations... - I think the important Long-Barrows element amongcoastal North Sea and South-Scandinavia, important element too in theFunnelbeaker cristallization, countained a weighty component ofprevioulsy Hunters-Gatherers of diverse places in Northern andAtlantic Europe, and that even at first, they were less « agricole »than the Linear Bank Ceramic and even than the Cardials – just abet – the less « hunter » were the more southern as awhole, came from South-East (rivers from Bohemia) and someof theJutland and Fyn island (here the « invaders » theory fromSouth is less valuable than an ecologic difficulty for agriculture, Ithink -
You may have missed this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30209-European-mtDNA-Signature-Established-in-the-Mid-Neolithic/page3
A few comments:

Bohemia and Middle Elbe / Saale were traditional LBK territory, and experienced the Neoithic revolution (by immigration from the middle Danube) even earlier than the Rhine. Thus, interpretation needs to consider that in the SE Funnelbeaker area, agriculture was introduced 1,500 years earlier than further north.
There are also comparisons available between different LBK areas for the late 6th millennium BC. In the Middle Elbe / Saale region, wild animals accounted for around 10% of all animal bones (and meat intake there was lower than among early English farmers). Along the Rhine, 50% of all animal bones were from wild animals (mainly Aurochs). There has furthermore been research whether male and female skeletons from the Stuttgart LBK grave field show signs of a division of labour. They do: Female joints were equally used, males had overused their right arms by what was interpreted as "frequent throwing movement". So far on the Stuttgart EEF!
While I am at that EEF. There is substantial data on LBK EEFs in the Ebe-Saale region. Predominant is yDNA G2a, a little bit of P*(x G,H,I,J,K) has also been found. I guess the latter means R. EEF mtDNA includes H (17%), N1a1a (12%), K (26%), T2 (17%), and J (12%). Except for J, these mtDNA hgs also dominate the Spanish Cardial/Epi-Cardial & middle Neolithic samples.
Motala, OTOH, gives us a pretty good idea of NHG genes: yDNA I, and mtDNA U(x K) - this combination has also been found in most other Mesolithic samples that I am aware of, including the Loschbour WHG. So, what was the Stuttgart EEF, again? yDNA G,, mtDNA K, which seems to be the most common EEF combination? Or G/H, which would provide the link from EEF to Europe's dominant mtDNA today? Oh, no, it was yDNA I2a1a (the Sardinian type), and mtDNA T2c1d1. Looks like an offspring from a male HG and a female early farmer. At least the female side is EEF - unfortunately from a hg that has become virtually extinct in Central Europe. Sorry, but I refuse to accept any conclusions someone is making on the EEF/ HG relations in Central and Northern Europe that are based on this Stuttgart sample! (That wasn't to you Moesan, but to other contributors here).
Let me also add that the late LBK on the upper Rhine is characterised by strange events: Cannibalism in Herxheim, a whole village (Vaihingen 20 km north of Stuttgart) killed in a violent attack by what, according to the tools used, were other LBK "farmers" from nearby, similar finds in Northern Switzerland, with females aged 15-30 suspiciously absent from the killed, etc. I need to look up the study again, but the rate of people that died violently during the LBK is estimated at between 7 and 19% - along the Rhine during the late LBK, the rate would probably even be higher. The former figure corresponds to 19th century France (including the Napoleonic Wars), the latter to Germany between 1900 and 1950 (WW I and II). Here goes the demographic advantage of early farmers...
Returning to hunting vs. farming in Northern Germany /Denmark: The Steffens report is interesting, but partly based on outdated information. One of the locations, Wolkenwehe near Bad Oldesloe, e.g. has in 2007-2009 been re-excavated, and yielded more than 60% domesticated animals instead of 43.5% as listed in the Steffens report. Another problem is that Steffens excluded cattle and pig bones, as it could not be distinguished whether they originated from wild or domesticated animals. In the meantime, such distinction can be made, at least for cattle vs. Aurochs, by DNA analysis probably also for pigs. If, however, comparison is only made between sheep/goat on one side and deer/ boar on the other side, results aren't going to be very meaningful for the Northern European plain, which is today Europe's dominating milk production region. Note furthermore that there is substantial indication that several locations, including Wolkenwehe, had a well-developed industry of processing animal bones into tools and decorative items. The bones might have arrived at some locations (especially those on the Sjaeland north coast, with bone counts as high as 25,000 over just 100 years) from distant HG communities for further processing. Wolkenwehe, 30 km distant from the coast, e.g. had significant shares of seal bones. The Mesolithic Swifterband culture in the Netherlands seems to have collected deer teeth for trading purposes, while in a Michelsberger Kultur grave in the Rhineland, a belt made out of 160 polished deer teeth was found. Finally, 13% of all bones, with particular concentration in swamp/ wetland areas, were from beaver or river otter. While definitely a HG activity, I (and actually also Steffens) doubt that beaver and otter were primarily hunted for their meat.
All available evidence points at a quick and non-violent transition from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. Neoltihisation reached the Mecklenburg coast around 4,100 BC, Sjaelland by 4,000, and Northern Jutland by 3,900. It was carried by immigration from the south-east (Schöningen/ Baalbuerge cultures) and, in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony, from the south-west (Michelsberg culture). While EEF DNA is well traceable in northern FB settlements, the original NHG gene pool (I / UxK) was preserved, mtDNA U even becomes the dominating hg in the late Neolithic Bernburg culture on the Middle Elbe / Saale (pre Corded-Ware!). Pollen diagrams suggest an early phase of intensive slash-and-burn until 3.800 BC. Latest from 3,500 onwards, cereal production intensifies, supported by ox-drawn scratch ploughs. Planted cereals include emmer, barley and wheat. Some archaeologists suppose Northern Germany and Denmark to have developed into an agricultural surplus producer that nourished areas further south, especially the mining and metallurgical complexes around the Harz and in the Siegerland. Note also that in all likelihood most of the Funnelbeakers and associated ceramics were produced on the Middle Elbe / Saale, while Saxony and Bohemia specialised more on linen production and processing (which isn't apparent in the North German archaeological record, so textiles were probably imported) - those people needed external food supply. Schleswig-Holstein has today the highest agricultural productivity in Germany (9 t/ha, France 7.4 t/ha, 2012 data). Why was such a highly productive area not settled earlier by farmers? I guess it has to do with climate change - the submerge of Doggerland affected the Scandinavian climate very favourably (gulf stream), while increasing the flooding risk for the valleys further south that used to be the traditional farming area.
Last but not least - what were Funnelbeakers, and that other ceramic innovation of the Baalberge culture on the photo below, used for? I only see two plausible possibilities: Milk, or beer. Actually, apple juice (there is some indication of systematic apple cultivation in FB North Germany) might be a third option. In any case - where you find a Funnelbeaker, there should be more than 95% probability that farmers lived close by.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Museum_f%C3%BCr_Vor-_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichte_Berlin_044.jpg/388px-Museum_f%C3%BCr_Vor-_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichte_Berlin_044.jpg

MOESAN
26-07-14, 18:41
This paper puts the Swedish Mesolithic and Neolithic into European and Near East context, especially as concerns the expansion of agriculture and the associated stone tool industry:
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf28/28knutsson.pdf

In other words - already Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers had a certain division of labour and some longer-distance trade.

In other words: The expansion of agriculture did not necessarily crowd-out hunter-gatherers. For early Neolithic Scandinavia (and that is most likely not he only place where this applied), it provided the opportunity to set traditional skills - flint prospection, collection and tool-making - in value, and receive other necessities or amenities (e.g. leather, linen clothing, pottery) in exchange. I would, btw, also guess that the contact across the Baltic Sea between Pomeranian LBK and Swedish Kongemose groups was rather initiated by the latter, as fishermen..

As concerns the "specialists" mentioned in the article, I am quite sure that outside the Mediterranean, most of them were from hunter-gatherer communities, i.e. typically Y-DNA I2* This is possibly the reason you find that haplogroup, often in rather homeopathic doses, almost everywhere where Neolithic mining occurred, with closely-related subclades spread as far apart fro each other as from Ireland to the Ural mountains.

Concerning Y-I2a2 (ex I1c ex I2b) Ilong time thought it was possibly an haplo born by metallurgy skilledpeople coming with other Y-haplos from East (Cucuteni-Tripolje,post-neolithical), pushed to W-Bohemia-E-Bavaria and around, byherders tribes of steppic Europeans – it was just a bet – thelater maps of distributions of this Y-haplo and other people theoriespush me to abandon this thought, for a while -
I wait ancient D to show us the ancientlocalization of « old » Y-I2a2, but its todaydistribution, spotted, spred away and mixed with other male haplosleave me confused -
the NFrank explanation (based upon theLiechtenstein cave) and proposing the Hunt-Gath's fellows (Y-I2a2) asleaders and scouts for poor feeble post-neolithical farmers and herdsfor searching metals ore, based on their supposed skills concerninggeography, topology, fishing-seafaring, and their better skills atwar is, for me, a bit uncertain – as him I don't think Hunt-Gath'swere overwhelmingly replaced in everyplace of Europe (I posted morethan a time for that) but my present thought is I don't see peopleignoring metal for a long long time, taking the leading place in thesearch and exploitation of it when it is other people, seemingly inbetter position (Copper Bronze warlike people) that made with it –the very majority of Y-I2a2 there in this Harz cave is maybe a verylocal and family biased exception – other sepultures of the samecultures and of the precedent local cultures could as well show usvery lower %s of Y-I2a2, closer to the today %s ? - for now I'mnot able to say what is right, NFrank's feeling or mine... - but Isee better a foreign winner males elite taking the strong side insuch an occurrence – uneasy to say...
Y-I2a2 could well be ancient in Europebut not by force in the current localizations – there are somehotspots in N and W Germany, NE and SW Scandinavia, Switzerland, andsome presence in NE Russia, East Moscow, E-Brittany-, the slopes ofthe C-Pyrénées, N-Greece, NW Italy, Britain and Ireland – andvery little spot around Campobasso in SC Italy (more recent origin?)
hard ! - after some firstintroductions in W-Europe by metals prospectors, it could haveparticipated to the eclosion of later cultures with an expansion andno more tight links with ore places – we can think (it is not atheory, only a possibility among others) in the Bell Beakers actionin W-Europe – the Britain localizations could be linked toPicts/Cruithni, Belgii and later Germanics, all of them culturally indebt to BBs – we have the Iberian localization, more on the West (+Portugal) than the East, spite Portugal shows as a whole moreneolithical imput than central and NE Spain, as for y-DNA andautosomals DNA – the position in central Pyrenees could beexplained by a BB early imput OR later celtic-germanic passages onthe way to Iberia (Sombor port, Bronze and Iron Ages for the Celts)with some people staying there -
in Germany it could fit well enough theThuringian region, where a succession of Donau mediated SEEuropean cultures (Neolithical and Bronze) came constantly incontact with autochtones and more NE Bronze people along thecenturies (the cause being in the metals richness and the riversnetwork) – the S-W Norway-Sweden and Denmark density fits bronzeAge colonizers of mixed BB type and N-E Sweden hotspot, aside apossible drift effect, could reflect a S to N ancient colonization(some forumer said somewhere (poor mind of mine) that metals oreswere found in N-Sweden, but I don't forget centuries passed there,and people too -
the possibility exists that by truehazard, new Y-I2a2 people (mixed with others) came fromSwitzerland-Elsass places, their farther origin in E-Carpathians,with the L38 kind mutated in the Alps, when the other subclades ofY-I2a2 were « autochtonous » before them ??? Hans DeBeule thought I2a2-L38 formed in the W-Alps and came up with peopleof the Rhine-Meuse area (me : Galians ? Belgii?) atLa Tène through Belgium to Britain – he excluded a Michelsbergerlate Neolithic heritage and even a Early Bronze Age spread (even ifnot absolutely excluded), he remarked L38 was almost absent of theNetherlands (but present in Liechtenstein cave, Urnfield culture, butUrnfields have no wide ethnic signification, so it was surely soonerthere) – so Celts, and before, proto-Celts or/and proto-Germanics(with BBs school?) - in Germany they seem (at first glance) amountains refuge people, and yet, but in other regions it is not thecase – very hard to say, because as a rule the richer metalsregions are in the hills and mountains ! - it proves the limitsof the intellectual theories without ancient factual traces...

MOESAN
26-07-14, 19:30
You may have missed this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30209-European-mtDNA-Signature-Established-in-the-Mid-Neolithic/page3
A few comments:

Bohemia and Middle Elbe / Saale were traditional LBK territory, and experienced the Neoithic revolution (by immigration from the middle Danube) even earlier than the Rhine. Thus, interpretation needs to consider that in the SE Funnelbeaker area, agriculture was introduced 1,500 years earlier than further north.
There are also comparisons available between different LBK areas for the late 6th millennium BC. In the Middle Elbe / Saale region, wild animals accounted for around 10% of all animal bones (and meat intake there was lower than among early English farmers). Along the Rhine, 50% of all animal bones were from wild animals (mainly Aurochs). There has furthermore been research whether male and female skeletons from the Stuttgart LBK grave field show signs of a division of labour. They do: Female joints were equally used, males had overused their right arms by what was interpreted as "frequent throwing movement". So far on the Stuttgart EEF!
While I am at that EEF. There is substantial data on LBK EEFs in the Ebe-Saale region. Predominant is yDNA G2a, a little bit of P*(x G,H,I,J,K) has also been found. I guess the latter means R. EEF mtDNA includes H (17%), N1a1a (12%), K (26%), T2 (17%), and J (12%). Except for J, these mtDNA hgs also dominate the Spanish Cardial/Epi-Cardial & middle Neolithic samples.
Motala, OTOH, gives us a pretty good idea of NHG genes: yDNA I, and mtDNA U(x K) - this combination has also been found in most other Mesolithic samples that I am aware of, including the Loschbour WHG. So, what was the Stuttgart EEF, again? yDNA G,, mtDNA K, which seems to be the most common EEF combination? Or G/H, which would provide the link from EEF to Europe's dominant mtDNA today? Oh, no, it was yDNA I2a1a (the Sardinian type), and mtDNA T2c1d1. Looks like an offspring from a male HG and a female early farmer. At least the female side is EEF - unfortunately from a hg that has become virtually extinct in Central Europe. Sorry, but I refuse to accept any conclusions someone is making on the EEF/ HG relations in Central and Northern Europe that are based on this Stuttgart sample! (That wasn't to you Moesan, but to other contributors here).
Let me also add that the late LBK on the upper Rhine is characterised by strange events: Cannibalism in Herxheim, a whole village (Vaihingen 20 km north of Stuttgart) killed in a violent attack by what, according to the tools used, were other LBK "farmers" from nearby, similar finds in Northern Switzerland, with females aged 15-30 suspiciously absent from the killed, etc. I need to look up the study again, but the rate of people that died violently during the LBK is estimated at between 7 and 19% - along the Rhine during the late LBK, the rate would probably even be higher. The former figure corresponds to 19th century France (including the Napoleonic Wars), the latter to Germany between 1900 and 1950 (WW I and II). Here goes the demographic advantage of early farmers...
Returning to hunting vs. farming in Northern Germany /Denmark: The Steffens report is interesting, but partly based on outdated information. One of the locations, Wolkenwehe near Bad Oldesloe, e.g. has in 2007-2009 been re-excavated, and yielded more than 60% domesticated animals instead of 43.5% as listed in the Steffens report. Another problem is that Steffens excluded cattle and pig bones, as it could not be distinguished whether they originated from wild or domesticated animals. In the meantime, such distinction can be made, at least for cattle vs. Aurochs, by DNA analysis probably also for pigs. If, however, comparison is only made between sheep/goat on one side and deer/ boar on the other side, results aren't going to be very meaningful for the Northern European plain, which is today Europe's dominating milk production region. Note furthermore that there is substantial indication that several locations, including Wolkenwehe, had a well-developed industry of processing animal bones into tools and decorative items. The bones might have arrived at some locations (especially those on the Sjaeland north coast, with bone counts as high as 25,000 over just 100 years) from distant HG communities for further processing. Wolkenwehe, 30 km distant from the coast, e.g. had significant shares of seal bones. The Mesolithic Swifterband culture in the Netherlands seems to have collected deer teeth for trading purposes, while in a Michelsberger Kultur grave in the Rhineland, a belt made out of 160 polished deer teeth was found. Finally, 13% of all bones, with particular concentration in swamp/ wetland areas, were from beaver or river otter. While definitely a HG activity, I (and actually also Steffens) doubt that beaver and otter were primarily hunted for their meat.
All available evidence points at a quick and non-violent transition from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. Neoltihisation reached the Mecklenburg coast around 4,100 BC, Sjaelland by 4,000, and Northern Jutland by 3,900. It was carried by immigration from the south-east (Schöningen/ Baalbuerge cultures) and, in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony, from the south-west (Michelsberg culture). While EEF DNA is well traceable in northern FB settlements, the original NHG gene pool (I / UxK) was preserved, mtDNA U even becomes the dominating hg in the late Neolithic Bernburg culture on the Middle Elbe / Saale (pre Corded-Ware!). Pollen diagrams suggest an early phase of intensive slash-and-burn until 3.800 BC. Latest from 3,500 onwards, cereal production intensifies, supported by ox-drawn scratch ploughs. Planted cereals include emmer, barley and wheat. Some archaeologists suppose Northern Germany and Denmark to have developed into an agricultural surplus producer that nourished areas further south, especially the mining and metallurgical complexes around the Harz and in the Siegerland. Note also that in all likelihood most of the Funnelbeakers and associated ceramics were produced on the Middle Elbe / Saale, while Saxony and Bohemia specialised more on linen production and processing (which isn't apparent in the North German archaeological record, so textiles were probably imported) - those people needed external food supply. Schleswig-Holstein has today the highest agricultural productivity in Germany (9 t/ha, France 7.4 t/ha, 2012 data). Why was such a highly productive area not settled earlier by farmers? I guess it has to do with climate change - the submerge of Doggerland affected the Scandinavian climate very favourably (gulf stream), while increasing the flooding risk for the valleys further south that used to be the traditional farming area.
Last but not least - what were Funnelbeakers, and that other ceramic innovation of the Baalberge culture on the photo below, used for? I only see two plausible possibilities: Milk, or beer. Actually, apple juice (there is some indication of systematic apple cultivation in FB North Germany) might be a third option. In any case - where you find a Funnelbeaker, there should be more than 95% probability that farmers lived close by.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Museum_f%C3%BCr_Vor-_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichte_Berlin_044.jpg/388px-Museum_f%C3%BCr_Vor-_und_Fr%C3%BChgeschichte_Berlin_044.jpg

Thanks for a soundly based post, Nfrank
I think you're interested in Historyvery more deeply than me, and you've a very huge documentation Ishall never have – I've some unred books (not up to date but it canhelp nevertheless) but written in german ! (I 've some sport tounderstand them) -
my pleasure it to do bets with somerough data before check them – all the way, scientific checkingsare the best ! I found a great interest in the data you gavehere, sincerely -
What you wrote here is not allways incontradiction with my poor data nor with my thoughts – OK forStuttgart : all the way we cannot base any global opinion on aso lonesome human being ! Europe is and was vaste and large –and the so called EEG formed an already partially heterogenous polewith surely archaical 'W-mediter' {Y-G2 ???}(some of them therebefore Neolithic) plus some 'SW-asian' {Y-E1b ???}– the todaySardinians are not a monolithical block, only a chosen referencegroup ) -
Guten Abend (Güten owend? Ghoeie'avond ? Goie' jûn?: Noswezh vad deoc'h!)

MOESAN
26-07-14, 19:40
I Wonder if Y-I2a1 is not rather a southern HG marker (coastal Adriatic and surroundings) involved or pushed by EEF

FrankN
27-07-14, 07:27
@Moesan: Yes, I am interested in history, and this happens to be my home region, where I just stumble over things during weekend excursions (drowned towns on the Baltic Sea coast, Arab coins on display in the Museum in Lübeck, an innocently looking hill in Franconia enclosed by a Celtic wall, etc.), and get curious. Asides, German archaeology has gotten beyond its "let's excavate another Roman village west of the Rhine" focus and starts digging deeper, and they find a lot!
Before I write another long article - a few interesting links (the last one is in German, but you seem to understand a bit of it, and an executive summary is already in my last post):
http://www.academia.edu/2284930/_Widely_travelled_people_at_Herxheim_Sr_isotopes_a s_indicators_of_mobility
http://www.anr-mk-projekt.fr/IMG/pdf/EAA2012_programme.pdf
http://www2008.io-warnemuende.de/projects/sincos/archive/sdarticle.pdf
http://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/bereiche/dateienJMueller/Mueller_aid.pdf (http://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/bereiche/dateienJMueller/Mueller_aid.pdf)

I leave I2a2 issue aside for a moment - we have other threads on that. Another point that you mentioned in a post here some time ago was the spread of megalithic culture. Here, we have two very interesting trends. One is the spread of the "allee couverte" / "Galeriegrab". The phenomenon appears almost simultaneously around 3,600 BC across the Michelsberg culture, but French archaeologists have recently established that it originated in the Paris basin and spread eastward. The principle is also copied in Westphalia - interestingly not in megalithic style, but with wood constructions that are filled with dry stone walls. Classical "allees couvertes" then spread further into southern Lower Saxony, Thuringia and the Elbe-Saale region, but only to a line slightly north of the Harz. Interestingly, together with these graves, the following objects, which may look familiar to you, are found:
http://www.sachsen-anhalt-wiki.de/images/thumb/c/ca/Menhir_Eichstaedter-Warte.jpg/190px-Menhir_Eichstaedter-Warte.jpg
Seems there has been a link from Brittany to the Elbe around 3,500 BC (and they probably called in "masters" to get the job done). And, surprisingly, the link wasn't Atlantic/ maritime, but continental.

Then, there is a second trend - the classic Nordic Megalithic, with an apparent epicentre on the Danish islands(see the maps at the end of my last link above). It starts with Kurgan-type burials - wooden grave chambers covered by large earth mounds ("Hünengräber"). Over time, additional wooden grave chambers are added, and the earth mound are elongated, until they reach a length of often more than 100 m. The mound is encircled with large stones, the so-called "Langbetten" (long barrows). Recent research has yielded that the earliest of these structures date to 4,100 BC, i.e. slightly predate the shift from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. From 3,650 on, the wooden chambers are replaced by Dolmen, but the overall context (earth mound encircled by long barrows) remains unchanged (i.e. no major population turnover). The appearance of Dolmen is at least contemporary with, possibly slightly predating the "allees couvertes", and the intensification of TRB agriculture, respectively. It is a mass movement: The total number of Dolmen in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia is estimated at 50,000 - that's not one per village, but one per farm-house. This points at a population of some 300-400 thousand people. The population density on the Danish isles should have ranged around 10-15 inhabitants / Km², about 50% higher than in the LBK core area during the 6th millennium. [Do I need to come back on Motala HG I2a -probably not.] Undoubtedly, even if a lot of work was done by family & friends outside the agricultural season, specialised "engineers" (and quite a number of them, we are talking at least 100-150 projects per year) must have been available for hire.
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/a558/a312/gallery/Germany/SchleswigHolsteinHamburg/Mildstedt_Dolmen_c.jpg
Dolmen construction spread gradually southward, though with limited intensity, to converge at the Weser and around the Harz with the "allees couvertes". The map below shows the approximate "border" for Saxony-Anhalt - the green area marks the "Hercynische Gruppe" where "allees couvertes" and Menirs are present. One should note that out of a total of 485 documented megalithic graves, only 15 are of the "Geleriegrab" or related stone cist type.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8f/Regionalgruppen_Megalithik_Sachsen-Anhalt.png/407px-Regionalgruppen_Megalithik_Sachsen-Anhalt.png

It all didn't end well: The Hercynian Group, a.k.a Salzmünde culture, for all its linkages to the Michelsberger Culture, was essentially Danubian in character, and had strong links to the Baden culture that had emerged in the old LBK homeland between Vienna and Budapest. [Anybody acquainted with 18th century history will guess what is coming now - cultural ties between the '"Parisian" Michelsberger Culture and the "Vienna-Budapest" Baden culture weren't well developed either, but fortunately, there was a Bavaria-based culture in-between.]. In newly and rapidly settled Brandenburg (one farmhouse every 400m along the smaller and larger rivers!) a phenomenon that has been described as "archaeology-friendly", namely lots of fortified settlements and (non-decaying) weapons in the graves, developed in the 32nd century along a line running north-eastwards from the lower Saale through today's Berlin to the mouth of the Oder. By 3,100 BC, the "Nordic" Bernburg culture violently ends the Salzmünde culture and establishes itself around the Harz and in Thuringia, with influence zones into northern Bavaria and Bohemia. This seems to have implied a substantial population turnover, NHG mtDNA U (xK) becomes the dominating haplogroup in this culture. Further west, along the upper and middle Weser, the Michelsberger Kultur had already before given way to the Wartberg culture, but that appears to have been a peaceful process of cultural rather than demic diffusion.

My question here to you (and others): Has the Nordic Megalithic, as now assumed by many researchers, been an autochthonous development, or has it been promoted from outside? 4,100 BC is a bit early for my taste to relate Nordic Kurgans (Hünengräber) to those in the Pontic Steppes. If there has been a flow of ideas from Britanny, it didn't come overland or along the coast via the Netherlands and Northern Germany, because the expansion pattern of Nordic Dolmen was the other way round. That leaves the possibility of spread via the British Isles - but has there been substantial Dolmen construction prior to 3,650 BC?

MOESAN
31-07-14, 15:26
very intyresting and coumented post, NFrank
I feel very poor in front of that: I recall just some complementary observations of scholars (XX°C end)
the first great megaliths in Brittany, dated by different unerelated teams give all of them a period beginning about the 4000 BC (6000 BP) and what is important they think these great structures (like the cairn of Barnenez N-Finistère) were built in a relative short period, and immediatly without a between stage with small ones - they say the mortuary first megaliths decoration art (on stelae) show something in common with the Balkans neolithical stylisation, not with the ancient Neolithic of the Near-East nor with the local Paleolithic one - so something occurred in Occident at these ages, which seems implying dominant numerous enough new people, a social structure which could put a lot of people to work (religion?)
concerning the propagation of Dolmens structures from the Atlantic to the Saale valley across the Bassin Parisien is interesting but could also be confusing: because for anthropologists, a part of the subsequent Seine-Oise-Marne SOM culture population shows (in more brutal) some affinities with the mesolithical Teviec types of future Brittany, themselves close enough to the archaïc element among the Michelsberg late-neolithical population - that said, it proves nothing before more ancient findings: I'm sure this archaïc types were not the promotors of megalithism, and they were rather an "autochtonous" laying of population let in N-W Europe by Mesolothical half sedentarized societies - their affinities don't prove they accompanied the megalithic movement in question -

MOESAN
31-07-14, 15:38
My question here to you (and others): Has the Nordic Megalithic, as now assumed by many researchers, been an autochthonous development, or has it been promoted from outside? 4,100 BC is a bit early for my taste to relate Nordic Kurgans (Hünengräber) to those in the Pontic Steppes. If there has been a flow of ideas from Britanny, it didn't come overland or along the coast via the Netherlands and Northern Germany, because the expansion pattern of Nordic Dolmen was the other way round. That leaves the possibility of spread via the British Isles - but has there been substantial Dolmen construction prior to 3,650 BC?

the Long Barrows of Britain had they the same wooden substructures like the Long Barrows of N-Germany/Denmark?: Coon thought there has been demic introgression of the phenotypical mean associated with british Long Barrows (some today traces in Britain, principally in Wales) into S Scandinavia ... I think the structural subgroups of megalithism architecture are born after the first impact (homogenous?)

FrankN
31-07-14, 23:08
Some excerpts from a recent conference agenda that may be pertinent to the discussion here:
http://www.lda-lsa.de/fileadmin/pdf/Tagungen/MesoBurials-2013_Abstracts.pdf


Skulls on stakes and skulls in water. Mesolithic mortuary rituals at Kanaljorden, Motala, Sweden 7000 BP
Excavations at Kanaljorden, Motala in the province of Östergötland in Sweden 2oo9–2o13 has unearthed a rare context from the Mesolithic. A small lake has been the locus for complex ritual activities that included the construction of a stone packing at the bottom of the lake. Select human bones – mostly skulls – from a dozen individuals have then been deposited on the stone-packing. Two of the skulls were mounted on wooden stakes still embedded in the cranium. Damage on other skulls indicate that more may have been similarly mounted. The context is 14C-dated to c. 58oo cal. BC. Ongoing laboratory analysis (aDNA, isotopes etc.) give insight into the relationship of the interred individuals.
Do we have the DNA of HGs, or of their prey?


New data on the Donkalnis and Spiginas (West Lithuania) Mesolithic cemeteries
Two archaeological complexes were discovered and examined at two sites by Lake Biržulis, namely the Mesolithic camp sites on the promontories of the lake peninsula (Spigino Ragas and Kalniškiai) and cemeteries and funeral feast and sacrifice pits on lake islands next to the camps (Donkalnis and Spiginas). Mesolithic remains were found by accident during land improvement works near the small Rešketa River in 193o–34.
The calibrated grave dates are as follows:
Spiginas Grave 1. A severely disturbed grave, 4o5o–35oo BC (dated by finds to 55oo BC);
Spiginas Grave 2. 666o–65oo BC;
Spiginas Grave 3. 64oo–624o BC;
Donkalnis Grave 2. 6377–6221 BC;
Donkalnis Grave 3. 47o6–4554 BC (dated later because of bone-strengthening material);
Donkalnis Grave 4. 598o–579o BC.
Although research into the diet of the people buried here shows that freshwater fish dominated their intake of food, their grave goods (wild animal teeth) show that hunting was still an important economic activity
Genetic research also shows that U4 and U5 genes are typical of Mesolithic graves from Biržulis but they are no longer typical of late Neolithic inhabitants. The move to agriculture in Central Europe and Western Lithuania alike was accompanied by influx of genes from other regions.

The Mesolithic burials of northeastern Germany – synopsis and new aspects
In contrast to the 13 localities with 22 Mesolithic graves and 26 buried individuals, in northeastern Germany, comprising about 5o ooo square kilometers, are known more than 2ooo Mesolithic settlement sites resp. places with Mesolithic flint artifacts, representing one site for about 25 square kilometer. In comparing the number of nown buried 26 individuals in northeastern Germany compared with estimated around 2oo ooo living individuals of the about 15o human generations existing in the 3ooo years of the Atlantic times from around 7ooo calBC to around 4ooo calBC, the number of the 26 buried individuals is clearly extremely low. All this we have to take into account in statements on the anthropological, genetical, health, diet etc. statuses of Mesolithic man, derived from the poor basis of the few existing human skeletons / bones as the source materials.
There is a lot more interesting stuff, covering almost all of Europe (except the British isles), plus the USA, Canada and Australia. Quite some examples of what you, MOESAN, called the "Archaic element", but also new evidence of sophisticated childcare by HGs.

sparkey
08-10-14, 19:49
Fire Haired and Sile have recently pointed out to me Genetiker's recent Y-DNA analysis of Motala 2 and Motala 6, so I thought I'd make a combined table of Y-DNA haplogroups for ancient Swedish samples, to their most precise call:



Stora Förvar 11
F xG,H,J,L,P L121- L178- L37- (so I2a1*, I2a1a, I2a1c, I2c, F2, or some other possibilities)


Motala 2
I2c L597+


Motala 3
I2 L68+ L181- L417- (so I2*, I2a*, I2a1, or I2c)


Motala 6
I L772+ L37- (so I*, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a1, I2b, or I2c)


Motala 9
I P38+ P40- (so I* or I2)


Motala 12
I2a1b L178+ M359.2- L621- (so I2a1b* or I2a1b2)


Ajvide 52
I2a2a1 CTS616+


Ajvide 58
I2a1 P37.2+ L158- M423- L880- L1294- (so I2a1* or I2a1c)


Ajvide 70
F2 M427+


Ire 8
F xG,H,L,P S66- L622- (so I2a1, I2c, F2, or some other possibilities)


Gökhem 4
I2 M438+ L159.1- L622- (so I2*, I2a*, I2a1*, I2a1b, I2a1c, I2a1d, I2a1e, I2a2*, I2a2b, I2b, or I2c)




When the results first started coming in, I thought that Loschbour-type I2a1b* would be dominant, since that's what we saw on Motala 12 as well, but that doesn't seem to be holding up. The total number of I2a1b*'s in that group could at most be 6 out of 11, and could be as low as just 1. In comparison, there could be anywhere from 1 to 7 I2c's in that group.

MOESAN
24-10-14, 00:26
have you red this (it's from Dienekes but Eurogenes and, I think, the Blog de Bernard Secher speak of it too)
problemes: the datations for a period becoming agitated!


October 21, 2014Ancient DNA from prehistoric inhabitants of Hungary

A very interesting new article on Europe describes new data from ancient Hungary from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. It is open access, so go ahead and read it. I will update this entry with some comments after I read the paper myself.

UPDATE I (The petrous bone):
The authors write:

The endogenous DNA yields from the petrous samples exceeded those from the teeth by 4- to 16-fold and those from other bones up to 183-fold. Thus, while other skeletal elements yielded human, non-clonal DNA contents ranging from 0.3 to 20.7%, the levels for petrous bones ranged from 37.4 to 85.4% (Fig. 1).This seems like a very exciting technical breakthrough that will increase DNA yields in future studies.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-xPGV13M4lSM/VEaknJoP-jI/AAAAAAAAJ0I/XmX-S48tr2A/s1600/ncomms6257-f2.jpg)
UPDATE II (PCA):
The Neolithic Hungarians are close to Sardinians (this has been replicated in study after study, so it's no longer a surprise when you find Neolithic Europeans that look like Sardinians).

What is surprising is that one KO1 Neolithic European is with the hunter-gatherers (top of the plot). At some level you would expect to find some hunter-gatherers in the earliest Neolithic communities in Europe as Europe wasn't empty land when the early farmers showed up. And KO1 appears one of those guys, "caught in the act" of first contact between the two groups.

The two Bronze Age samples are more like modern continental Europeans but not exactly like modern Hungarians. The Iron Age sample is in the no-man's land between Europe and the Caucasus and his "Asian" Y chromosome and mtDNA seems to agree that this is no ordinary European.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gnh19OW6tcg/VEamwgP4XTI/AAAAAAAAJ0c/C0iD8CluhQE/s1600/ncomms6257-f3.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gnh19OW6tcg/VEamwgP4XTI/AAAAAAAAJ0c/C0iD8CluhQE/s1600/ncomms6257-f3.jpg)
UPDATE III (How they looked):
I really like the visualization of hair and eye color predictions of the last two columns of the table on the right. It seems that the ancient Hungarians had mainly brown hair with more variability after 5,000 years ago. They mostly had brown eyes except three individuals.

An interesting thing is that NE7 who seems to have light hair and blue eyes is just like other Sardinian-like farmers of the Neolithic and also has the mtDNA haplogroup N1a1a1a that is ultra-typical for Neolithic people from Europe. So this is a warning not to conflate appearance with ancestry.

UPDATE IV (Y chromosomes):
As always, the supplement has many of the interesting details. Two Neolithic males were C6 which is the same "weird" haplogroup that La Brana hunter-gatherer from Spain had. Two other ones were I2a which is what Loschbour and Swedish hunter-gatherers had. Strangely, no Neolithic males had G which was found before in many Neolithic Europeans.

A new finding is that the Bronze Age individual BR2 belonged to haplogroup J2a1. I think this is the first time this has been found in ancient DNA and it falsifies the Phoenician sea-faring theory of the dispersal of this lineage.

Finally, the Iron Age Hungarian belonged to haplogroup N. I believe this was found in ancient Magyars from Hungary before, but apparently it existed there long before them.

Nature Communications 5, Article number: 5257 doi:10.1038/ncomms6257

Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory

Cristina Gamba et al.

The Great Hungarian Plain was a crossroads of cultural transformations that have shaped European prehistory. Here we analyse a 5,000-year transect of human genomes, sampled from petrous bones giving consistently excellent endogenous DNA yields, from 13 Hungarian Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Age burials including two to high (~22 × ) and seven to ~1 × coverage, to investigate the impact of these on Europe’s genetic landscape. These data suggest genomic shifts with the advent of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, with interleaved periods of genome stability. The earliest Neolithic context genome shows a European hunter-gatherer genetic signature and a restricted ancestral population size, suggesting direct contact between cultures after the arrival of the first farmers into Europe. The latest, Iron Age, sample reveals an eastern genomic influence concordant with introduced Steppe burial rites. We observe transition towards lighter pigmentation and surprisingly, no Neolithic presence of lactase persistence.

LeBrok
24-10-14, 01:35
have you red this (it's from Dienekes but Eurogenes and, I think, the Blog de Bernard Secher speak of it too)
problemes: the datations for a period becoming agitated!

Yes. We are indulging in a great discussion about this latest paper here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al


A new finding is that the Bronze Age individual BR2 belonged to haplogroup J2a1. I think this is the first time this has been found in ancient DNA and it falsifies the Phoenician sea-faring theory of the dispersal of this lineage. and by Roman Empire and Christianity. I wonder if RHAS will show up soon to update his thread?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28988-Haplogroup-J2-Romans-Christianity-and-Viticulture?highlight=viticulture

In my eyes J2 is a good candidate for copper age expansion/revolution, but maybe I'm pushing it too much back?

MOESAN
24-10-14, 17:55
yes. We are indulging in a great discussion about this latest paper here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-ancient-dna-from-hungary-christine-gamba-et-al

and by roman empire and christianity. I wonder if rhas will show up soon to update his thread?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28988-haplogroup-j2-romans-christianity-and-viticulture?highlight=viticulture

in my eyes j2 is a good candidate for copper age expansion/revolution, but maybe i'm pushing it too much back?



yes i saw this very thread today!!! I was surprised nobody had seen that before and i have not time to read all the new posts or threads
thanks