PDA

View Full Version : Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers



Eldritch
04-09-14, 11:27
Farming was established in Central Europe by the Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK), a well-investigated archaeological horizon, which emerged in the Carpathian Basin, in today's Hungary. However, the genetic background of the LBK genesis has not been revealed yet. Here we present 9 Y chromosomal and 84 mitochondrial DNA profiles from Mesolithic, Neolithic Starčevo and LBK sites (7th/6th millennium BC) from the Carpathian Basin and south-eastern Europe. We detect genetic continuity of both maternal and paternal elements during the initial spread of agriculture, and confirm the substantial genetic impact of early farming south-eastern European and Carpathian Basin cultures on Central European populations of the 6th-4th millennium BC. Our comprehensive Y chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA population genetic analyses demonstrate a clear affinity of the early farmers to the modern Near East and Caucasus, tracing the expansion from that region through south-eastern Europe and the Carpathian Basin into Central Europe. Our results also reveal contrasting patterns for male and female genetic diversity in the European Neolithic, suggesting patrilineal descent system and patrilocal residential rules among the early farmers.

Three STA individuals belong to the NRY haplogroup F* (M89) and two specimens can be assigned to the G2a2b (S126) haplogroup, and one each to G2a (P15) and I2a1 (P37.2) (Dataset S3, S5).

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2014/09/03/008664

Aberdeen
04-09-14, 14:03
To me, the most interesting detail was this.

"The two investigated LBKT samples carry haplogroups G2a2b (S126) and I1 (M253). Furthermore, the incomplete SNP profiles of eight specimens potentially belong to the same haplogroups; STA: three G2a2b (S126), two G2a (P15), and one I (M170); LBKT: one G2a2b (S126) and one F* (M89) (Dataset S5).

So, while most of the Y DNA was typical of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East, Y haplotype I and specifically I1 was also present.

Sennevini
04-09-14, 14:13
Interesting to see I1 there; it shouldn't be too surprising though as we don't know a lot about its early history but this is very interesting! And another case against R1b being from farmers.

elghund
04-09-14, 15:24
What does this map mean from the paper?
6604

Angela
04-09-14, 15:32
It seems that in addition to I2a1, I1 was one of the y lineages that were assimilated by the Neolithic farmers very early on. This is consistent with papers showing that the assimilation of hunter-gatherers in the Balkans happened within a few generations, whatever might have been the case in central Europe.

kamani
04-09-14, 15:36
What surprised me was to see in neolithic farmers a very large percentage of F* which they say was very related to G2a. Mind that most current ydna in Eurasia descends from F* but very far down the tree.

Maciamo
04-09-14, 17:01
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.

Aberdeen
04-09-14, 18:14
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.

I never thought about it before in quite that light, but the age of this I1 and its presence in a Neolithic farming setting in the Carpathian Basin may indicate that, after being assimilated by Neolithic farmers whose ancestors came from the Middle East, I1 folk entered Scandinavia as Neolithic farmers, and that's why I1 is so common there, even though it may have evolved in Europe from IJ. So, instead of I1 being proof of a high rate of survival of pre-Neolithic hunter/gatherer type folk in Scandinavia after the advent of farming in that area, I1 could actually be proof of farmers displacing hunter/gatherer types in Scandinavia. Perhaps the I1 farmers pushed out the I2 hunter/gatherers.

Aberdeen
04-09-14, 18:16
Interesting to see I1 there; it shouldn't be too surprising though as we don't know a lot about its early history but this is very interesting! And another case against R1b being from farmers.

Given the time frame, this does not in fact tell us anything about whether R1b could have entered Europe during the late Neolithic. IMO, that's a separate issue.

LeBrok
04-09-14, 18:33
It seems that in addition to I2a1, I1 was one of the y lineages that were assimilated by the Neolithic farmers very early on. This is consistent with papers showing that the assimilation of hunter-gatherers in the Balkans happened within a few generations, whatever might have been the case in central Europe. I wouldn't jump into these conclusions too fast Angela. If farmers had slaves, from what populations do you think these slaves would come from?

Aaron1981
04-09-14, 19:03
I never thought about it before in quite that light, but the age of this I1 and its presence in a Neolithic farming setting in the Carpathian Basin may indicate that, after being assimilated by Neolithic farmers whose ancestors came from the Middle East, I1 folk entered Scandinavia as Neolithic farmers, and that's why I1 is so common there, even though it may have evolved in Europe from IJ. So, instead of I1 being proof of a high rate of survival of pre-Neolithic hunter/gatherer type folk in Scandinavia after the advent of farming in that area, I1 could actually be proof of farmers displacing hunter/gatherer types in Scandinavia. Perhaps the I1 farmers pushed out the I2 hunter/gatherers.

Probably not since I count a grand total of maybe 4-5 distinct G2a male lineages in Scandinavia. I don't believe the LBK farmers ever made a push into far north Europe - the society collapsed long before then. Based on the dates, 'farming' pushed into Scandinavia during the copper or bronze age, at which point R1b/R1a had already been introduced to Europe. Lo and behold, the 2nd and 3rd most common lineages in Scandinavia are R1b and R1a respectively. These later immigrants had farming, but they were probably not the "first" European farmers. The LBK left a very minimal imprint on far northern Europe.

Maciamo
04-09-14, 19:32
I never thought about it before in quite that light, but the age of this I1 and its presence in a Neolithic farming setting in the Carpathian Basin may indicate that, after being assimilated by Neolithic farmers whose ancestors came from the Middle East, I1 folk entered Scandinavia as Neolithic farmers, and that's why I1 is so common there, even though it may have evolved in Europe from IJ. So, instead of I1 being proof of a high rate of survival of pre-Neolithic hunter/gatherer type folk in Scandinavia after the advent of farming in that area, I1 could actually be proof of farmers displacing hunter/gatherer types in Scandinavia. Perhaps the I1 farmers pushed out the I2 hunter/gatherers.

Exactly. That also explains why Scandinavians have so much Mediterranean admixture in the Dodecad K12, and even more Early European Farmer(EEF)admixture (>30%) in the Lazaridis 2014 paper. But that doesn't mean that Pre-Indo-European Scandinavians were already a blend of I1 and G2a lineages. The current evidence rather suggests that I1 entered Scandinavia late, perhaps with R1a during the Corded Ware period, or just before that.

What seems quite likely is that Neolithic Germans and Poles were a blend of Mesolithic I1 from central or southeast Europe and Neolithic farmers from the eastern Mediterranean. This is the population that the R1a people of the Corded Ware would have met advancing from Ukraine and Belarus westward to Germany.

The oddest thing so far is the high percentage of F* in Central European Neolithic samples. Either they didn't test all the subclades or that means that this male population underwent a severe pruning, possibly when the Indo-Europeans invaded, considering that 60 to 70% of Polish and German paternal lineages are now either R1a or R1b.

bicicleur
04-09-14, 19:46
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.

finding I1 is maybe the biggest surprise of the year, indeed
I1 expansion was estimated some 4300 years old
the sample is 4900 - 5600 old, so this might be the single source from where all present-day I1 expanded

the Balkans south of the Danube and north of Greece were uninhabited during the mesolithic

this suggests I2a1 - P37.2 originated in the Greek ice age refuge , from where the split north (starcevo) and west along with cardium pottery (Sardinia, Southern France)

I1 may have been in the Italian/Adriatic refuge, which expanded into the Carpathian basin some 17000 years ago

what happened to F* ? isn't it very rare in Europe?

sparkey
04-09-14, 19:48
G2a wins again, but it's the elusive I1 sample that will get a lot of play out of this. This particular I1 sample may predate the TMRCA of (at least most) modern I1, so it's perhaps no surprise that it's not very close to the area of the highest modern frequency of I1. Actually, it's not too far from an outlier subclade of modern I1, which has presence in the Czech Republic IIRC. So although this doesn't prove much about I1's past, it's certainly evidence that it could have spread from that direction.

I wish they had tested for the subclade of I2a1. As is, it could be I2a-M26 (consistent with other Neolithic farmer samples) or an I2a-Din relative (which would be very notable!) or it could be something else. Oh well.

bicicleur
04-09-14, 19:49
I wouldn't jump into these conclusions too fast Angela. If farmers had slaves, from what populations do you think these slaves would come from?

where did they find the skeletons? was it in a burrial site
i don't think slaves got proper burrial at that time

sparkey
04-09-14, 20:03
About those F*'s:

Based on the supplementary datasets, here are the haplogroups the first two F*'s could be:
F*, F1, F2, F3, H, IJ*, IJK*, HIJK*, GHIJK*

The second two F*'s got no-calls for J* (but negative for J1 and J2) so they could be any of those as well, or J*.

Angela
04-09-14, 20:31
I wouldn't jump into these conclusions too fast Angela. If farmers had slaves, from what populations do you think these slaves would come from?

I'm not quite sure I understand, but I'll take a stab at it. :) Are you thinking that the "I" lineage males were slaves? I have to read the paper more carefully. Is there any indication from the archaeology that the "I" males were of a lower social status?

I also don't know that we have any indication that very early farmers had slaves. I would think that slavery would involve a level of stratification in society that would be more typical of the very late Neolithic if not the Metal Ages, although that's just my best guess. Perhaps an analogy might be the difference between the more advanced Aztecs and Incas, who indeed had slavery (and ritual sacrifices using slaves) and the Plains Indians, who often, particularly with young people, adopted them into the tribe.

This is the study to which I was referring about assimilation of hunter-gatherers in the north-central Balkans around Lepinski Mir:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298
"Strontium Isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic"


This is the abstract:
Questions about how farming and the Neolithic way of life spread across Europe have been hotly debated topics in archaeology for decades. For a very long time, two models have dominated the discussion: migrations of farming groups from southwestern Asia versus diffusion of domesticates and new ideas through the existing networks of local forager populations. New strontium isotope data from the Danube Gorges in the north-central Balkans, an area characterized by a rich burial record spanning the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, show a significant increase in nonlocal individuals from ∼6200 calibrated B.C., with several waves of migrants into this region. These results are further enhanced by dietary evidence based on carbon and nitrogen isotopes and an increasingly high chronological resolution obtained on a large sample of directly dated individuals. This dataset provides robust evidence for a brief period of coexistence between indigenous groups and early farmers before farming communities absorbed the foragers completely in the first half of the sixth millennium B.C.

Following is a link to the supplementary information. It's well worth a read.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/02/06/1211474110.DCSupplemental

Ed. Perhaps this is the source of the "hunter-gatherer" component of EEF.

Robert6
04-09-14, 20:47
What does this map mean from the paper?
6604
Figure 4. Genetic distance map of the STA-LBK Y chromosomal data.
Y chromosomal genetic distances (Fst) were computed between the STA-LBK samples and 100 present-day
populations of Eurasia and North Africa and visualized on a geographic map. Grey dots denote the
location of present-day populations. Color shadings indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of
Neolithic samples to the modern-day populations. Short distances and great similarities to present-day
populations are marked by red areas. Fst values were scaled by an interval range of 0.01. Fst values higher
than 0.21 were not differentiated (grey areas). The map shows remarkable affinities of the STA-LBK
Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 4, 201436
samples to present-day populations of the northwest and south Caucasus. Population information and Fst
values are listed in table S15.

bicicleur
04-09-14, 21:21
About those F*'s:

Based on the supplementary datasets, here are the haplogroups the first two F*'s could be:
F*, F1, F2, F3, H, IJ*, IJK*, HIJK*, GHIJK*

The second two F*'s got no-calls for J* (but negative for J1 and J2) so they could be any of those as well, or J*.

quite a broad definition of F*
which one is most common among todays Europeans?
isn't that F2?

bicicleur
04-09-14, 21:33
Figure 4. Genetic distance map of the STA-LBK Y chromosomal data.
Y chromosomal genetic distances (Fst) were computed between the STA-LBK samples and 100 present-day
populations of Eurasia and North Africa and visualized on a geographic map. Grey dots denote the
location of present-day populations. Color shadings indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of
Neolithic samples to the modern-day populations. Short distances and great similarities to present-day
populations are marked by red areas. Fst values were scaled by an interval range of 0.01. Fst values higher
than 0.21 were not differentiated (grey areas). The map shows remarkable affinities of the STA-LBK
Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 4, 201436
samples to present-day populations of the northwest and south Caucasus. Population information and Fst
values are listed in table S15.

what strikes me is the Maykop culture area with lowest fst values
i suppose they are not ancestral to STA-LBK culture
does it mean STA-LBK and Maykop have the same genetic origin ?

Robert6
04-09-14, 21:52
what strikes me is the Maykop culture area with lowest fst values
i suppose they are not ancestral to STA-LBK culture
does it mean STA-LBK and Maykop have the same genetic origin ?
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia

Robert6
04-09-14, 22:13
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia

Looks like the LBK people had "Fox Cult"
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour nal.pbio.1000535.g001&representation=PNG_L
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000535 (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000535)


Also the Alans of Saltovo-Mayaki culture from Northern Don region had "Fox Cult"(foxes were buried in graves)
Alans of Saltovo-Mayaki culture had Catacomb burial ritual and also they had haplogroup G2 there are some paleo-dna results from Northern Don region
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30314-Alans(with-Catacomb-burial-ritual)-from-River-Don-8-th-century-6-had-haplogroup-G2

bicicleur
04-09-14, 22:24
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia

do you think Globular Amphora are the successors of LBK ?

bicicleur
04-09-14, 22:27
I wish they had tested for the subclade of I2a1. As is, it could be I2a-M26 (consistent with other Neolithic farmer samples) or an I2a-Din relative (which would be very notable!) or it could be something else. Oh well.

I guess if they could, they would.
Some parts of the DNA may be unreadable.

These I2a1 may have been a subclade gone extinct by now.

Robert6
04-09-14, 22:35
do you think Globular Amphora are the successors of LBK ?
LBK -> Rössen culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture
LBK -> Lengyel culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture
LBK -> Stroke-ornamented ware culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture

elghund
04-09-14, 23:10
Are subclades for the mtDNA haplogroups accessible from the raw data? I'm particularly interested in J and K.

Fire Haired14
05-09-14, 00:02
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.


I*'s hasn't been found just hg I which couldn't be tested for many downstream SNPs. I'm not sure if you knew that PWC hunter gatherer Ajv52 had I or I2a2a1.

motzart
05-09-14, 03:13
there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though :disappointed:

http://i.imgur.com/QJ67y2c.jpg

LeBrok
05-09-14, 03:42
there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though :disappointed:


From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)

motzart
05-09-14, 03:45
Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.

I disagree with the posters on this site who now think that the spread of I1 into Scandinavia and I2 in the Balkans represent an expansion with Neolithic farming because then we would see larger amounts of G2a wherever we find I1 or I2 and this is not the case. Nor do we see any evidence of farmers mixing with HGs based on the mtDNA. I believe that the EEF we see in Scandinavians from the Lazaridis study was probably brought with the R1b migration there.

sparkey
05-09-14, 06:38
quite a broad definition of F*
which one is most common among todays Europeans?
isn't that F2?

As far as I know, none of F1, F2, or F3 are common among Europeans. F1-P91 is pretty much Sri Lankan, F2-M427 is pretty much Lahu (although it may have been found in a Swedish Pitted Ware sample--or that could have been a false positive), and F3-M481 is pretty much Indian. H2-P96, which used to be called F3-P96 before its relationship with H was established, is my guess for what these samples were.

Fire Haired14
05-09-14, 07:41
Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.

Fire Haired14
05-09-14, 07:54
From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)

I doubt there was sex biased on hunter-farmer mixing. Sometimes hunters and farmers had sex, and I doubt the hunter was usually the male and the farmer usually the female, it was just random. Maybe I'm making it to simplistic, I don't know. Modern European mtDNA and Y DNA has obviously gone under serious drift multiple times which makes it hard to predict ancestry percentages(80% farmer maternal lineages for Balts, but under 30% farmer ancestry) and relatedness based on big haplogroup percentages(like 40% H), and these early Neolithic samples are from a time of admixture and before drift, so it's very interesting to see the results, the Starčevo are the oldest Neolithic Euro mt and Y samples yet and it seems they had much less WHG than later farmers.

bicicleur
05-09-14, 09:10
Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.

there is something strange about G2a
they seem to have been very succesfull at the early neolithic, being represented in 2 branches : cardium pottery (PF3146 ?) and LBK
yet the only succesfull branch today seems to be P303, which may represent Maykop

I1 did a much better job alltough expansion started very late

motzart
05-09-14, 09:31
No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.

Maciamo
05-09-14, 09:50
From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)

What could have happened is that some I1 hunter-gatherers copied the farming techniques of their G2a neighbours in Hungary, or that a group of I1 warriors invaded some G2a villages, killed off (most of) the men and took the women for them (or raped them). There descendants would have been mostly I1 men with Near Eastern or Balkanic mtDNA. This new hybrid generation could then have grown and prospered and developed into the LBK culture. That would make sense since LBK mtDNA is overwhelmingly East Mediterranean, while I1 appears to have colonised Germany and Scandinavia late, considering that none of the Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia or Germany/Luxembourg were I1 so far.

Maciamo
05-09-14, 10:00
Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.

Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.

Sile
05-09-14, 10:46
Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.

While I support most of your post, I cannot see J2 and T involved in metal work. My take is because T in anatolia, Levant, Egypt, africa and arabian peninsula is all too young ....there is a gap of 30000 years from origin of T to any of these areas I noted.
I believe T formed around Azeri lands near caspian sea, they were mostly fishermen/hunters ( lezkins) , moved into North Caucasus as you say, and mostly spread around as hunters, that's why the huge dispersal of T and that's why no bones are found for T.....hunters cannot bury themselves. Otzi ,a hunter was only found due to the ice. Farmers bury or cremate the dead.

It would be interesting to see what % increase there would be for T if all pre-2008 papers looked into the found K ydna . It might change opinions.

J2, IMO formed In the south side of the zargos mountains around mesopotamia, are farmers and I cannot see an earlier migration into the north caucasus.

I would like to know why or how T, G, I, H, L and J sat in the caucasus waiting 40000 years for the creation of R to join them...........seems illogical that people sat around that long in that period of history

Yetos
05-09-14, 11:20
No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.

with termination wiped out, you mean by force? excluding diseases? or diseases are included.

for example afrodisiac diseases killed more Europeans than American Indians did,
and Alchool more Indians than settlers did.

kamani
05-09-14, 13:51
Figure 4. Genetic distance map of the STA-LBK Y chromosomal data.
Y chromosomal genetic distances (Fst) were computed between the STA-LBK samples and 100 present-day
populations of Eurasia and North Africa and visualized on a geographic map. Grey dots denote the
location of present-day populations. Color shadings indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of
Neolithic samples to the modern-day populations. Short distances and great similarities to present-day
populations are marked by red areas. Fst values were scaled by an interval range of 0.01. Fst values higher
than 0.21 were not differentiated (grey areas). The map shows remarkable affinities of the STA-LBK
Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 4, 201436
samples to present-day populations of the northwest and south Caucasus. Population information and Fst
values are listed in table S15.

that looks a lot like the current map of hg G: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26690-Updated-map-of-haplogroup-G

Aberdeen
05-09-14, 14:52
What could have happened is that some I1 hunter-gatherers copied the farming techniques of their G2a neighbours in Hungary, or that a group of I1 warriors invaded some G2a villages, killed off (most of) the men and took the women for them (or raped them). There descendants would have been mostly I1 men with Near Eastern or Balkanic mtDNA. This new hybrid generation could then have grown and prospered and developed into the LBK culture. That would make sense since LBK mtDNA is overwhelmingly East Mediterranean, while I1 appears to have colonised Germany and Scandinavia late, considering that none of the Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia or Germany/Luxembourg were I1 so far.

Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.

Robert6
05-09-14, 15:28
there is something strange about G2a
they seem to have been very succesfull at the early neolithic, being represented in 2 branches : cardium pottery (PF3146 ?) and LBK
yet the only succesfull branch today seems to be P303, which may represent Maykop


In west Caucasus among Adyghe people you will find only G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ and G2a1a
G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ is 2700-3000 years old, and there are no other subclades of G2a3b1 P303 among them.
And only some branches of haplogroup J2 are old enough among Adyghe people, reaching ages of 5500 and 5200 years old.
I think that Maykop people were mostly J2

bicicleur
05-09-14, 17:55
While I support most of your post, I cannot see J2 and T involved in metal work. My take is because T in anatolia, Levant, Egypt, africa and arabian peninsula is all too young ....there is a gap of 30000 years from origin of T to any of these areas I noted.
I believe T formed around Azeri lands near caspian sea, they were mostly fishermen/hunters ( lezkins) , moved into North Caucasus as you say, and mostly spread around as hunters, that's why the huge dispersal of T and that's why no bones are found for T.....hunters cannot bury themselves. Otzi ,a hunter was only found due to the ice. Farmers bury or cremate the dead.

It would be interesting to see what % increase there would be for T if all pre-2008 papers looked into the found K ydna . It might change opinions.

J2, IMO formed In the south side of the zargos mountains around mesopotamia, are farmers and I cannot see an earlier migration into the north caucasus.

I would like to know why or how T, G, I, H, L and J sat in the caucasus waiting 40000 years for the creation of R to join them...........seems illogical that people sat around that long in that period of history

there is a gap of 2-3000 years between the 1st neolithic wave and the arrival of IE people in Europe

there was 2nd neolithic wave : http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

the 2nd wave brought J and T IMO, they were not farming the land, they were herders, but also farmers adapted the milk economy : Lyengel , TRB , British neolithic , ..

bicicleur
05-09-14, 18:01
Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.

expansion of I1 must have come after LBK :

1/ I1 expansion is estimated only 4300 years ago
2/ if I1 expanded during LBK , why did G2a not expand at the same rate ; I1 was only a small minority among G2a in LBK

bicicleur
05-09-14, 18:07
In west Caucasus among Adyghe people you will find only G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ and G2a1a
G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ is 2700-3000 years old, and there are no other subclades of G2a3b1 P303 among them.
And only some branches of haplogroup J2 are old enough among Adyghe people, reaching ages of 5500 and 5200 years old.
I think that Maykop people were mostly J2

you mean G2a1a P16 1/P16 2 ?

sparkey
05-09-14, 18:15
Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for.

"Data Supplements" > "Supplementary datasets 1-17" > "S5"

You can see that the I1 sample was positive for M89 (F), M170 (I), and M253 (I1) but negative for M438 (I2). No downstream I1 SNPs were tested. IJ was not tested.


Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

I don't think that I1-DF29 is old enough to be around since the Mesolithic. DF29 represents the primary modern expansion of I1 but it seems to have happened to the north somewhere, since it includes the main subclades of West, East, and North Germanic peoples (Z58, Z63, and L22). I'm guessing that if this ancient sample had been tested for these SNPs, it would have been negative for all of them. If we're supposing that the ancient sample is closer to the true origin of I1, then that means that the I1 of today is mostly from a young displaced branch, while the old I1 branches went extinct (as far as we can tell from samples we have so far). Actually, that scenario would tie up some loose ends, like why modern I1 appears so young, and why Eastern Europe has no native haplogroup that appears to date to the Mesolithic like I2 does in Western and Central Europe. I'm not ready to commit to the hypothesis with only one sample, though.


It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.

Could it be that hunters and hunters-turned-farmers were more likely to be pushed to the north than migrant farmers, and northerners would later experience population expansion at the expense of southerners? Probably too simplistic an explanation, but that could be one of the many effects to contribute to the pattern we see.

MOESAN
05-09-14, 18:51
what strikes me is the Maykop culture area with lowest fst values
i suppose they are not ancestral to STA-LBK culture
does it mean STA-LBK and Maykop have the same genetic origin ?

I lack details but some studies about metric and non-metric traits on skulls and teeth concluded the types of Armenians Highland population was common among AND the North Caucasus ancient populations (Pre-Br and Bronze Age) AND the Cucuteni-Trypillian populations, these types were found too among the supposed I-Ean cultures of the Steppes at same time, but attenuated as distance augmented - "Neolithic" or "bronze age" is a poor adjective to identifygenetically these populations because the regions and their populations which produced, apparently, agriculture are the same which produced diverses stages of metallurgy!

MOESAN
05-09-14, 19:14
I add I regreat ancien anthropology because it was focalized on superficial traits (and typology) which inabled to differenciate cousin or sister (close) populations in a way very more precise than can do autosomals studies or distances metric modern comparisons, sometime confusing - it's true that genetical heritability of some features are in discussuin but I think the exercice was of some worth, nevertheless, when added to other ways of investigation.
a survey and compilation of ancient works concludes there were changes in people features at the beginning of Neolithic in the Balkans (around Donau river,in Serbia and Croatia (with the eternal considerations of new types and crossings opposed to in situ evolution: evolution I find a bit rapid, all that is new official science like the "no-move-theories" in archeology - we know now what value this last theory has) - the old science said that two population among local HGs existed at first: one almost "pure" cromagnoid, the other a mix of cromagnoids and brunnoid types (I have to find it back) whan Neolithic send a pannel of so called mediterranoid subtypes, what is not too surprising - crossings appeared a few later, if I don't mistake-
the apparition of brachycephally in Armenia and North Mesopotamia ddin't precede the 2000's BC according to old scholars: what would be their aurosomals and haplo's today affiliation? I wonder... the same phenomenon appeared (in less)in the steppes almost at the same time: from Carpathians or from East Caspian??? it would be interesting concerning the metal ages and the I-Ean question knowing what other means of rechearch could tell us about all that???

Sile
05-09-14, 19:51
there is a gap of 2-3000 years between the 1st neolithic wave and the arrival of IE people in Europe

there was 2nd neolithic wave : http://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471

the 2nd wave brought J and T IMO, they were not farming the land, they were herders, but also farmers adapted the milk economy : Lyengel , TRB , British neolithic , ..

Have you read the June 2014 Karafet papers?

Its, states IIRC, GHIJTLNO formed within 6000 years of each other , and P formed in modern Malaysia .........R and Q came from this P and R-207 has 8% in Java, Borneo etc....there is nearly 30000 years between this GHIJTL group and the creation of R.
Why would this west-asian/southasian group that formed in and around Iran , Pakistan and India wait 30000 years for R ?

Below is the new age of markers from July 2014 as what is now accepted
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/dates_zpse638dd6e.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/dates_zpse638dd6e.jpg.html)

I am not saying all the main R formed in South-East Asia...I am saying the wait time for creation of R makes no sense for the other markers to wait around and do nothing

K' = the new K1 which is T and L
K'' = the new K2a which is N and O
and R and Q belong to K2b

Angela
05-09-14, 22:08
Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.


I agree for the most part. From everything in recent papers about the culture of the foragers at the time of the Neolithic transition, they were not the mobile mammoth hunters of the popular imagination. Rather, whether it was the people living around the Danube Gorges, in Germany (Bollongino et al) or in Gotland, they seem to have been relatively sedentary fisher folk. More like the Indians of the Pacific northwest than the Dakota. (See Boric et al about mobility at this period: Our study unequivocally proves that in the earliest phases of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe, perhaps paradoxically, farming communities were much more mobile than local foraging populations, which in the case of the Danube Gorges remained tied to the exploitation of particular ecological niches since the beginning of the Holocene up until ∼6200 cal B.C. ")

According to the same paper, there seems to have been some absorption of local hunter gatherers,at least in the Danube Gorges area. We also know that from the fact that some samples found in a Neolithic context in Hungary were I1, and in other Neolithic contexts were I2a.

From the paper: "Strontium isotope ratios indicate a dramatic increase in the numbers of nonlocal, first-generation migrants buried in this region at two sites—Lepenski Vir and Ajmana—during the course of Mesolithic–Neolithic transformations in the Danube Gorges (∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C.) in the sample of 25 securely dated individuals from three sites. This trend continues into the period of the Early/Middle Neolithic after ∼6000/5950 cal B.C. in the sample of 26 securely dated individuals from two sites. Strontium isotope ratios associated with individuals dated to these periods occur outside both the upper and lower boundaries of the defined local strontium range (Figs. 2 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#F2) and 3 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#F3)), suggesting at least two or more geologically distinct regions of origin for these incomers."

A change in culture is dramatically apparent not only in the old Mesolithic settlements like Lepinski Vir, but, of course, in the totally new centers established by the newcomers.The authors conclude that "this pattern could be interpreted as suggesting a reciprocal mating network between the Danube Gorges foragers and the earliest farming communities in the surrounding areas, with largely nonlocal women being buried at the central forager site of Lepenski Vir during these phases."

They further go on to state that "important changes were taking place in these forager societies that came under pressure from the growing Neolithic presence in the adjacent areas after ∼6200 cal B.C. (14 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-14), 16 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-16), 17 (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long#ref-17)). This process of asymmetrical acculturation ended up in a complete absorption of forager specificity in the first several centuries of the sixth millennium B.C."

Furthermore, they state that...As for the Danube Gorges foragers, judging by, at first, a rather organic appropriation and incorporation of new elements of social and material existence as well as biologically “new blood” into the existing modes of being, and, consequently, the abandonment of forager cultural specificity, the mentioned process might have had a predominantly positive connotation or at least represented the only viable solution in the face of the emerging demographics."

That isn't to say that violence didn't occur;the authors also document the discovery of a couple of severed heads. However, the transition seems to have been relatively peaceful.

Given this model, how then are we to make sense of the mtdna findings from the site in Hungary which is the subject of this thread? In Hungary, at least, the U5 lineages which the scholars have been associating with the Mesolithic fisher/foragers form only 10% of the total. Does that mean the wife exchanges were asymmetrical? I don't know. Perhaps forager women, totally foreign to the Neolithic lifestyle, would not have been the first choice for a Neolithic village, while a farmer mate could provide a source of technological expertise in the forager communities? Or, perhaps it was simply a case where the Neolithic farmers just outbred them.

Also, I think we have to keep in mind that the I1 and even the I2a forager lineages are decidedly in the minority. So perhaps we have to think in terms of some absorption of the foragers, but it might be that the majority of them were pushed further to the northeast. There is an analogy in what happened to the North American Indians.

Finally, I think that one has to keep in mind the papers which have argued for a major population crash in central Europe, a population crash which didn't affect southern Europe. How many of the LBK (and related cultures) people remained to encounter the "Indo-Europeans" I don't know, nor do I know the autosomal make-up of this third wave. I would be very surprised, however, if they didn't carry a large EEF component themselves.

Robert6
06-09-14, 00:05
you mean G2a1a P16 1/P16 2 ?
Yes G2a1aP16_1, P16_2, FGC645/Z6616
But P16_1, P16_2 are unstable and unreliable
Better if we say G2a1a FGC645

LeBrok
06-09-14, 03:09
I don't think that I1-DF29 is old enough to be around since the Mesolithic. DF29 represents the primary modern expansion of I1 but it seems to have happened to the north somewhere, since it includes the main subclades of West, East, and North Germanic peoples (Z58, Z63, and L22). I'm guessing that if this ancient sample had been tested for these SNPs, it would have been negative for all of them. If we're supposing that the ancient sample is closer to the true origin of I1, then that means that the I1 of today is mostly from a young displaced branch, while the old I1 branches went extinct (as far as we can tell from samples we have so far). Actually, that scenario would tie up some loose ends, like why modern I1 appears so young, and why Eastern Europe has no native haplogroup that appears to date to the Mesolithic like I2 does in Western and Central Europe. I'm not ready to commit to the hypothesis with only one sample, though.
Thanks for this elegant explanation. Always admire your ability to word your ideas in so easy to comprehend style.




Could it be that hunters and hunters-turned-farmers were more likely to be pushed to the north than migrant farmers, and northerners would later experience population expansion at the expense of southerners? Probably too simplistic an explanation, but that could be one of the many effects to contribute to the pattern we see. I don't think it was that easy for HGs to break into farmers society. When we look at LBK culture and samples that's around 2,000 years after first farmers took first step in Europe around Bulgaria and Greece. At the time of LBK we should be able to start seeing first HGs among farmers. More precisely HGs paternal haplogroups in farmers population. When this I1 individual is tested autosomally, sample should show predominantly EEF admixture. If it shows mainly WHG that I would swear he was most likely a slave. ;)

Do you have any hypothesis what happened to E1b folks? Are they still deep in South Balkans at this time?

LeBrok
06-09-14, 03:28
Given this model, how then are we to make sense of the mtdna findings from the site in Hungary which is the subject of this thread? In Hungary, at least, the U5 lineages which the scholars have been associating with the Mesolithic fisher/foragers form only 10% of the total. Does that mean the wife exchanges were asymmetrical? I don't know. Perhaps forager women, totally foreign to the Neolithic lifestyle, would not have been the first choice for a Neolithic village, while a farmer mate could provide a source of technological expertise in the forager communities? Or, perhaps it was simply a case where the Neolithic farmers just outbred them.

Also, I think we have to keep in mind that the I1 and even the I2a forager lineages are decidedly in the minority. So perhaps we have to think in terms of some absorption of the foragers, but it might be that the majority of them were pushed further to the northeast. There is an analogy in what happened to the North American Indians.
.
Well, 10% might be just right. Roughly speaking, population density between farmers and HGs is 10 to 1. If farmers settled and mixed right away with HGs that is the proportion of haplogroups or admixtures one might expect coming from density factor. I don't think it was the case, but surprisingly the numbers added up, lol.

To bad they didn't use Lazarides autosomal admixture "standards", we would know right away much EEF mixed with HGs.

Maciamo
06-09-14, 09:57
To bad they didn't use Lazarides autosomal admixture "standards", we would know right away much EEF mixed with HGs.

They didn't here, but the Lazaridis paper tested the autosomal DNA of one LBK individual from Germany (Stuttgart) and the proportion was also 90% East Mediterranean (EEF) and 10% Mesolithic European (WHG).

That makes it even more difficult to understand how I1 became so overwhelmingly dominant compared to G2a (3:1) in Germany and especially in Scandinavia (15:1 in Denmark, 30:1 in Sweden/Norway). I suppose it has to do with a founder effect in the northward expansion of farmers from Germany to Scandinavia. After all, even if the Neolithic farmers that colonised Scandinavia were 90% EEF and 10% WHG, if it was just one extended family and all the men were I1 (by chance), then I1 ended up introducing Mediterranean genes into Scandinavia. That would explain why Mesolithic Scandinavians had 0% EEF, but modern Scandinavians have 40% EEF. That would also explain why a mere 15% of mtDNA lineages in Sweden and Norway are Mesolithic U4 and U5, and only 8% in Denmark. In fact we cannot even be sure that these are direct descendants from the Mesolithic inhabitants of Scandinavia since the Indo-Europeans definitely had U4 and U5 among their lineages too.

Ironically most of the 45% WHG admixture in modern Scandinavians may have come from R1a invaders from the Corded Ware (and some from the subsequent R1b invaders in the Late Bronze Age).

epoch
06-09-14, 09:58
To bad they didn't use Lazarides autosomal admixture "standards", we would know right away much EEF mixed with HGs.

The idea is to find results independently. If they then match you can be relatively sure it is right.

Angela
06-09-14, 16:53
I think we have to keep in mind here that there isn't a perfect correlation between the percentages for uniparental markers and autosomal results. While the "hunter/fisher/forager" mtdna might only account for 10% of the lineages, their autosomal contribution might be greater. There is then the y lineage contribution. So, you could easily reach the 20% 'hunter-fisher-gatherer" component hypothesized for the EEF signature. I don't know if that's coincidence or not, but the numbers fit.

The authors also come down in favor of a scenario were most of the prior inhabitants evacuated the area, presumably for the northeast regions. From the paper:
Residual Neolithic hunter-gatherer isolates, as reported from Central Europe by Bollongino et al. [30], have not yet been observed in our study region. According to the low proportion of hunter-gatherer mtDNA lineages in the LBK gene pool, we assume that admixture between hunter-gatherers and colonizing LBK farmers was negligible in Central Europe.
Considering the relative size and speed of the LBK expansion, we have to assume a substantial population growth during the earliest LBKT, which might have resulted in a population pressure and led to emigration from Transdanubia [55]. While such a radical population increase was not palpable from the Early Neolithic archaeological records [7], but recent extensive archaeological excavations have provided new insights into large-scale early LBKT settlements in western Hungary [9,56,57], which suggest larger source communities for a possible colonization than previously assumed.

In other words, previous scenarios underestimated the numbers of farmers moving into Central Europe, and the Bollongino results seem to be anomalous. Indeed, I never thought the interpretation of that find ever made much sense. A strange use of a burial cave by two different cultures for a couple of hundred years should not have been, in my opinion, extrapolated to mean that there were two, co-equal in numbers, cultures inhabiting Central Europe at the same time. (Fisher/forager and Farmer)

An obvious take away from the results is the extreme diversity of the mtDNA package in comparison to the y dna results. The authors explain it in terms of patrilocality, which makes sense. What I find more interesting is the question of where that mtDNA package was formed, especially in light of the so far unpublished results from an analysis of mesolithic Greek mtdna, which found no U5 or U4, but did find what are usually called "Neolithic" or "Near Eastern" lineages. There are also the recently published mtDNA samples from the Near Eastern Neolithic, Fernandez et al 2014, which can be found here: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1004401

This is a table of the Fernandez results:
http://www.ephotobay.com/image/picture-32-55.png

As to this last find, this is what the authors of the current paper have to say:

Recent aDNA study from 8000 BC Near Eastern farmers raises the question whether modern Near Eastern mtDNA can be used as a proxy for the Near Eastern Neolithic variability [44]. In our opinion, these newly described seven different incomplete HVS-I haplotypes (np 16095-16369) only provide a limited basis for comparative aDNA analyses, and we thus still consider modern-day Near Eastern genetic data sufficient proxies, when tracing the origin of the first European farmers.

The fact that prior papers found an affinity between the mtDna of Crete and the Near East on the one hand, with that of Europe on the other, also has to be factored into the equation.

So, I don't know where we stand. Maybe the supposedly Mesolithic dna found in Greece which is not U5 or U4 is misdated. Or, the movement of mtDNA from the Near East into Europe began during the Mesolithic. There's something to be said for the fact that population increases in the Near East which coincided with improving climatic conditions actually propelled the development of this new technology. It could also have propelled migration into similar climatic regions in the Greek Islands and mainland proper.

We know that the Neolithic transition occurred in the Near East. However, when these farmers moved into Europe, they might have encountered people already related to them at least through some mtDNA lines.

Btw, speaking of the Fernandez paper, I think their map is a great way to visualize the spread of the Neolithic:

6605

Aberdeen
06-09-14, 18:22
When trying to make sense of the population movements, I think it's important to remember that we're talking about the Carpathian Basin, a relatively flat area of grassland with a river running through it. During the Early Neolithic, farmers with stone axes would congregate in an area like that and avoid the more forested area, so they could graze their livestock and till the soil without first having to clear the land of trees, so the population of Hungary during the Early Neolithic could have been much higher than elsewhere in Central Europe. Of course, once people acquired copper and perhaps bronze axes, clearing the forest would have been a little easier, but I doubt the population would have shifted off the plains that quickly. And the Carpathian Basin would have also seemed highly appealing to the Bronze Age IE pastoralists, so I suspect the population replacement rate as a result of the later Indo-European invasions would have been much higher in this area than in some other parts of Central Europe, specifically those heavily forested areas to the north. If the G2 folk remained primarily on the Hungarian Plain, they would have felt the full impact of the IE invasions. However, if I1 folk did learn farming for G2 people, then decided to move north or were pushed north into more forested areas, they would have initially been much less vulnerable to Indo-European pastoralists with bronze weapons, simply because forest lands with farms carved out of them are much less appealing to pastoralists than open plains.

bicicleur
06-09-14, 19:21
I'm not quite sure I understand, but I'll take a stab at it. :) Are you thinking that the "I" lineage males were slaves? I have to read the paper more carefully. Is there any indication from the archaeology that the "I" males were of a lower social status?

I also don't know that we have any indication that very early farmers had slaves. I would think that slavery would involve a level of stratification in society that would be more typical of the very late Neolithic if not the Metal Ages, although that's just my best guess. Perhaps an analogy might be the difference between the more advanced Aztecs and Incas, who indeed had slavery (and ritual sacrifices using slaves) and the Plains Indians, who often, particularly with young people, adopted them into the tribe.

This is the study to which I was referring about assimilation of hunter-gatherers in the north-central Balkans around Lepinski Mir:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298
"Strontium Isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic"


This is the abstract:
Questions about how farming and the Neolithic way of life spread across Europe have been hotly debated topics in archaeology for decades. For a very long time, two models have dominated the discussion: migrations of farming groups from southwestern Asia versus diffusion of domesticates and new ideas through the existing networks of local forager populations. New strontium isotope data from the Danube Gorges in the north-central Balkans, an area characterized by a rich burial record spanning the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, show a significant increase in nonlocal individuals from ∼6200 calibrated B.C., with several waves of migrants into this region. These results are further enhanced by dietary evidence based on carbon and nitrogen isotopes and an increasingly high chronological resolution obtained on a large sample of directly dated individuals. This dataset provides robust evidence for a brief period of coexistence between indigenous groups and early farmers before farming communities absorbed the foragers completely in the first half of the sixth millennium B.C.

Following is a link to the supplementary information. It's well worth a read.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2013/02/06/1211474110.DCSupplemental

Ed. Perhaps this is the source of the "hunter-gatherer" component of EEF.

it makes sense, at first there was place for 2 complimentary economies at Lepenski Vir : the fisher/hunter/gatherer and the new neolithic one
both economies could benefit from mutual trade, as their products (and resources) were complimentary
but when the neolithic population kept growing, it must have created problems
a tough choice for the original fisher/hunter/gatherers

gyms
07-09-14, 06:57
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.
"We sampled one Mesolithic, 47 Starčevo and 61 LBKT skeletons, excavated in Croatia and western Hungary.

I1 was found in western Hungary not in the Balkans.
The STA expanded from present-day Serbia to the western part of the Carpathian Basin, encompassing the regions of today’s northern Croatia and south-western Hungary (ca. 6,000- 5,400 BC) [7,8] (Figure 1), and resulting in the formation of the Linearbandkeramik culture (LBK) [9]."

Robert6
09-09-14, 20:31
Journal of Language Relationship • 9 (2013) • Pp. 69–92 • © Dybo A., 2013
Anna Dybo
Russian State University for the Humanities (Moscow)
Language and archeology: some methodological problems.1. Indo-European and Altaic landscapes
The article is the first part of a larger work that represents an attempt to systematize ourideas on the natural environment and material culture of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. It is based on a more or less complete selection of reconstructed words from the appropriate semantic areas and on their comparison with a similar selection performed for a proto-language of similar time depth, whose speakers evidently inhabited a territory that was notin contact with the Proto-Indo-European one — Proto-Altaic. In this part, only the words that belong to the semantic field of landscape terms are analyzed. The main conclusion is that thehypothesis of a steppe environment is more applicable for the Proto-Altaic population,whereas for Proto-Indo-Europeans a mountainous region seems more appropriate. As forthe water bodies, for Proto-Indo-Europeans we should suppose the existence of a sea (or of avery big lake), and for speakers of Proto-Altaic, the existence of very big rivers with seasonfloods.
http://jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

Sile
10-09-14, 21:29
New study

http://vaedhya.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/worldwide-population-y-dna-collated-xu.html

has excel spreadsheets also

Interesting for me is the T-L162 in ancient Peru ..............although I do not belong to this T branch.
T-L162 ( with or without P77 ) .........is clearly the oldest of the T branches as it appears in many spots world wide ...........The T-L131 ( seems much younger) must be, as stated by others to be an "azeri"( lezkins) branch moving in a NW and W pattern and finally much later going S

sparkey
10-09-14, 22:12
Interesting for me is the T-L162 in ancient Peru

Ancient Peru? Looks like the tested modern Quechua. They also found an instance of haplogroup I in the Quechua. Probably European lines.

villandra
03-01-17, 15:44
I just spent most of the afternoon and evening researching this find of haplogroup I1 in Hungary from the LBK (Neolithic).
This is a highly edited version (critical information is different), that I posted in the I1 forum, not knowing that this I1 sample is discussed yet a THIRD time here.


The article by a Hungarian archeologist, presents results of DNA testing on collections of bones from around Hungary and surrounding areas, from the Neolithic and earlier.

In the supplementary data are tables that contain a bare minimum of information on each skeleton examined. The lone haplogroup I1 male skeleton is one of six skeletons from some place on planet Mars, or maybe Jupiter, called Balatonszemes-Bagodomb. Google can't even find the place. It turns out to be on the southern shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary, just west of the Carpathian basin, in a region where there are many Starcevo, LBK and transitional sites - but Balatonszemes and Bagodomb are two places near each other, and google maps can't find the second one. Along Lake Balaton they are found in a belt along the northern and western coasts of the lake and the south and east are notably missing them. There are, however, finds from every other cultural epoch in European archeology in the region as well. This was a main route from the lower Danube into Europe.


There is a vague reference to Zoffmann (2011). Zoffmann isn't in the references (the bibliography), and is mentioned only in the acknowledgements for having provided contextual information about the skeletons that the author never thought to pass on to the reader.


There is absolutely nothing about how we know the remains are LBK or what PART of the LBK, which is a long and culturally complex period.


The LBK encompasses the time from 5600 BCE to 4250 BCE, give or take a few hundred years.


Haplogroup I1 is expected to have a date of origin about 2500 BCE. Specifically, haplogroup I1 has a very long chain of mutations, that separate it from haplogroup I, quite unlike haplogroup I2, which has only a few mutations separating its main subclades that can't be more than just pre-Neolithic in age, from haplogroup I.


Even though I posted a link to the article yesterday with no problem, today it will not let me post a link, and it also mysteriously tells me I haven't posted recently. ???? Gremlins.


The article is "Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization",
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy, Guido Brandt, Victoria Keerl, János Jakucs, Wolfgang Haak, Sabine Möller-Rieker, Kitti Köhler, Balázs Mende, Marc Fecher, Krisztián Oross, Tibor Paluch, Anett Osztás, Viktória Kiss, György Pálfi, Erika Molnár, Katalin Sebők, András Czene, Tibor Paluch, Mario Šlaus, Mario Novak, Nives Pećina-Šlaus, Brigitta Ősz, Vanda Voicsek, Krisztina Somogyi, Gábor Tóth, Bernd Kromer, Eszter Bánffy, Kurt Alt.


But the journal title does not appear since one is SUPPOSED to use the url! The url appears twice in the citation and the journal title does not. So I guess you all will have to google it. It is at biorxiv dot org.

The authors of the study determined haplogroup by testing for 30 or so specific SNPs. For haplogroup I1, that was M253. M253 is an early found SNP in the chain of mutations that defines I1 that is still in use but may not necessarily be the chronologically last mutation to appear, so it is not necessarily impossible that it did exist in 6000 BCE.


I have incorrect information about the history of the sample in an earlier post in another Eupedia discussion. I posted that the information is wrong, but moved the discussion over here.


Data about the specific I1 skeleton is presented in several places in the supplemental data. The haplogroup I1 male is BAB5, from Balatonszemes-Bagodomb, in the Carpathian basin, in Hungary. He was 34 to 40 years old. It is on the southern shore of Lake Balaton. It is mitochondrial haplogroup H. It is the only male from the six people in that set of graves, whose Y DNA was tested. Table S2 makes it look like the data came from Zoffmann 2011, which is who my post yesterday identifies as the excavator, but as the author pointed out to me in an email, Table 1 gives more information. There were a total of 6 skeletons, excavated by the Directorate of Somogy County Museums/ Institute of (location of Lake Balaton), archeological features LBK settlement and graves, fine archeological chronology, Bicske-Bina, Keszthely, grave characteristics, crouched skeletons, 4 on the left side, 2 with grave goods. Archeological references, Bondar-Honti-Kiss 2000, Kiss 2002, Kiss V. - Sebok 2007. Anthropological references K. Zoffmann 2007, 2011.

In her email, Anna Szecseny-Nagi, the author of the study, told me she agrees with my reservations about the actual age of the skeleton. Viki Kiss is who did the excavation, and says the grave is LBKT. Evidently this grave was not one of the graves that had grave goods. "We did have some problems with this grave, which we are currently analysing for full genome as well. We date BAB5 in two radiocarbon labs, and I can tell you more about it in March-April (2017, this discussion is old), when I have the results. Genomically it seems to be younger then LBKT, even if the archaelogical context was clearly Neolithic...".


I have seen, and followed up on, speculation that the roots of haplogroup I1 could lie with a thriving Mesolithic people who were in contact with the Neolithic but had no particular reason to join them; such a group could have carried a haplogroup for thousands of years without developing any genetic variation, which is clearly the story of haplogroup I1. it must be said that quite a few Y DNA haplogroups and subclades that were once common in Europe are now rare or extinct, so it is possible I1 once had genetic variation it now lacks. I pursued an observation I found online that the lower/ middle Danube, specifically the Iron Gates, were an ideal situation for such a thing, for instance, the people of Lepenski Vir. It appears from the archeology that the region around Lake Balaton was an even better situation; for LBK was actually born of the assimilation of Mesolithic people by the migrating Neolithic people. The Lepenski Vir theory is missing a clear explanation of how the group moved on to Scandinavia, though similarities in pottery suggest some kind of hop by travelers to the Rhine Delta or Denmark. The Carpathian basin theory is very logical, because the Neolithic people of this area were migrating. They continued to migrate, all the way to Germany. The LBK reached nearly to the Baltic coast and Denmark, and gave rise to a culture immediately to the north that encompassed Denmark and southern Scandinavia, and the western Baltic coast.
However, intriguing though this is, I would really wait for more information or else another find of ancient haplogroup I1 in the area before fully committing to it.


Since clearly the author of the study does have an interest in pursuing it, I will mention the suggestion I got on my earlier post to the wrong board, that what is needed is a full Y sequence.

gyms
03-01-17, 17:55
The lone haplogroup I1 male skeleton is one of six skeletons from some place on planet Mars, or maybe Jupiter, called Balatonszemes-Bagodomb. Google can't even find the place. It turns out to be on the southern shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary, just west of the Carpathian basin, in a region where there are many Starcevo, LBK and transitional sites - but Balatonszemes and Bagodomb are two places near each other, and google maps can't find the second one.

Hungarians are martians:Jump to: navigation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists)#mw-head), search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists)#p-search) "The Martians" were a group of prominent Jewish-Hungarian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary) scientists (mostly, but not exclusively, physicists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist) and mathematicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematicians)) who immigrated to the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) in the early half of the 20th century.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists)#cite_note-whitman_2012-1) They included, among others, Theodore von Kármán (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_von_K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n), John von Neumann (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann), Paul Halmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos), Eugene Wigner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Wigner), Edward Teller (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller), George Pólya (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P%C3%B3lya), and Paul Erdős (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Erd%C5%91s). They received the name from a fellow Martian Leó Szilárd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C3%B3_Szil%C3%A1rd), who jokingly suggested that Hungary was a front for aliens from Mars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars). In an answer to the question of why there is no evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth despite the probability of it existing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_Paradox) Szilárd responded "They are already here among us: they just call themselves Hungarians."

It's NOT Bagodomb,it's Bagódomb!

https://www.google.se/maps/place/Balatonszemes,+Bag%C3%B3domb+Camping,+8636+Ungern/@46.8171469,17.855214,10z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x4769b1a6c6203f6b:0x3fe34e2832bea fb3!8m2!3d46.7868657!4d17.7878262?hl=sv

You should learn Martian!

Angela
03-01-17, 18:35
Wasn't an autosomal analysis done of the sample who carried yDna I1, and wasn't he a typical Neolithic farmer? If that's the case then what's all the fuss here?

LeBrok
03-01-17, 18:36
I just spent most of the afternoon and evening researching this find of haplogroup I1 in Hungary from the LBK (Neolithic).
This is a highly edited version (critical information is different), that I posted in the I1 forum, not knowing that this I1 sample is discussed yet a THIRD time here.


The article by a Hungarian archeologist, presents results of DNA testing on collections of bones from around Hungary and surrounding areas, from the Neolithic and earlier.

In the supplementary data are tables that contain a bare minimum of information on each skeleton examined. The lone haplogroup I1 male skeleton is one of six skeletons from some place on planet Mars, or maybe Jupiter, called Balatonszemes-Bagodomb. Google can't even find the place. It turns out to be on the southern shore of Lake Balaton in Hungary, just west of the Carpathian basin, in a region where there are many Starcevo, LBK and transitional sites - but Balatonszemes and Bagodomb are two places near each other, and google maps can't find the second one. Along Lake Balaton they are found in a belt along the northern and western coasts of the lake and the south and east are notably missing them. There are, however, finds from every other cultural epoch in European archeology in the region as well. This was a main route from the lower Danube into Europe.


There is a vague reference to Zoffmann (2011). Zoffmann isn't in the references (the bibliography), and is mentioned only in the acknowledgements for having provided contextual information about the skeletons that the author never thought to pass on to the reader.


There is absolutely nothing about how we know the remains are LBK or what PART of the LBK, which is a long and culturally complex period.


The LBK encompasses the time from 5600 BCE to 4250 BCE, give or take a few hundred years.


Haplogroup I1 is expected to have a date of origin about 2500 BCE. Specifically, haplogroup I1 has a very long chain of mutations, that separate it from haplogroup I, quite unlike haplogroup I2, which has only a few mutations separating its main subclades that can't be more than just pre-Neolithic in age, from haplogroup I.


Even though I posted a link to the article yesterday with no problem, today it will not let me post a link, and it also mysteriously tells me I haven't posted recently. ???? Gremlins.


The article is "Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers reveals insights into their social organization",
Anna Szécsényi-Nagy, Guido Brandt, Victoria Keerl, János Jakucs, Wolfgang Haak, Sabine Möller-Rieker, Kitti Köhler, Balázs Mende, Marc Fecher, Krisztián Oross, Tibor Paluch, Anett Osztás, Viktória Kiss, György Pálfi, Erika Molnár, Katalin Sebők, András Czene, Tibor Paluch, Mario Šlaus, Mario Novak, Nives Pećina-Šlaus, Brigitta Ősz, Vanda Voicsek, Krisztina Somogyi, Gábor Tóth, Bernd Kromer, Eszter Bánffy, Kurt Alt.


But the journal title does not appear since one is SUPPOSED to use the url! The url appears twice in the citation and the journal title does not. So I guess you all will have to google it. It is at biorxiv dot org.

The authors of the study determined haplogroup by testing for 30 or so specific SNPs. For haplogroup I1, that was M253. M253 is an early found SNP in the chain of mutations that defines I1 that is still in use but may not necessarily be the chronologically last mutation to appear, so it is not necessarily impossible that it did exist in 6000 BCE.


I have incorrect information about the history of the sample in an earlier post in another Eupedia discussion. I posted that the information is wrong, but moved the discussion over here.


Data about the specific I1 skeleton is presented in several places in the supplemental data. The haplogroup I1 male is BAB5, from Balatonszemes-Bagodomb, in the Carpathian basin, in Hungary. He was 34 to 40 years old. It is on the southern shore of Lake Balaton. It is mitochondrial haplogroup H. It is the only male from the six people in that set of graves, whose Y DNA was tested. Table S2 makes it look like the data came from Zoffmann 2011, which is who my post yesterday identifies as the excavator, but as the author pointed out to me in an email, Table 1 gives more information. There were a total of 6 skeletons, excavated by the Directorate of Somogy County Museums/ Institute of (location of Lake Balaton), archeological features LBK settlement and graves, fine archeological chronology, Bicske-Bina, Keszthely, grave characteristics, crouched skeletons, 4 on the left side, 2 with grave goods. Archeological references, Bondar-Honti-Kiss 2000, Kiss 2002, Kiss V. - Sebok 2007. Anthropological references K. Zoffmann 2007, 2011.

In her email, Anna Szecseny-Nagi, the author of the study, told me she agrees with my reservations about the actual age of the skeleton. Viki Kiss is who did the excavation, and says the grave is LBKT. Evidently this grave was not one of the graves that had grave goods. "We did have some problems with this grave, which we are currently analysing for full genome as well. We date BAB5 in two radiocarbon labs, and I can tell you more about it in March-April (2017, this discussion is old), when I have the results. Genomically it seems to be younger then LBKT, even if the archaelogical context was clearly Neolithic...".


I have seen, and followed up on, speculation that the roots of haplogroup I1 could lie with a thriving Mesolithic people who were in contact with the Neolithic but had no particular reason to join them; such a group could have carried a haplogroup for thousands of years without developing any genetic variation, which is clearly the story of haplogroup I1. it must be said that quite a few Y DNA haplogroups and subclades that were once common in Europe are now rare or extinct, so it is possible I1 once had genetic variation it now lacks. I pursued an observation I found online that the lower/ middle Danube, specifically the Iron Gates, were an ideal situation for such a thing, for instance, the people of Lepenski Vir. It appears from the archeology that the region around Lake Balaton was an even better situation; for LBK was actually born of the assimilation of Mesolithic people by the migrating Neolithic people. The Lepenski Vir theory is missing a clear explanation of how the group moved on to Scandinavia, though similarities in pottery suggest some kind of hop by travelers to the Rhine Delta or Denmark. The Carpathian basin theory is very logical, because the Neolithic people of this area were migrating. They continued to migrate, all the way to Germany. The LBK reached nearly to the Baltic coast and Denmark, and gave rise to a culture immediately to the north that encompassed Denmark and southern Scandinavia, and the western Baltic coast.
However, intriguing though this is, I would really wait for more information or else another find of ancient haplogroup I1 in the area before fully committing to it.


Since clearly the author of the study does have an interest in pursuing it, I will mention the suggestion I got on my earlier post to the wrong board, that what is needed is a full Y sequence.

Interesting. There is always a chance that a younger body is buried inside ancient historical place, messing up the site for archeologists. I just hope finds like this could be recognized as "fishy", and bones dated just to make sure.
Having said this, as Angela mentioned his autosomal DNA fits exactly as farmer of LBK. So why the suspicion?

holderlin
04-01-17, 07:38
Wasn't an autosomal analysis done of the sample who carried yDna I1, and wasn't he a typical Neolithic farmer? If that's the case then what's all the fuss here?

I was wondering this.

holderlin
04-01-17, 07:41
Is there something wrong with the TRB culture as the carrier of the I1 founder effect in Scandinavia?

bicicleur
04-01-17, 08:53
Is there something wrong with the TRB culture as the carrier of the I1 founder effect in Scandinavia?

these are the oldest I know



Nordic LN
Sweden
Abekas I [RISE179]
M
2010-1776 BC
I
CTS674, CTS1301, FI3, CTS10941
K1a3
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


RISE179 Sweden Nordic LN I1-Z2765/CTS3506





Nordic Bronze Age
Sweden
Angmollan [RISE207]
M
1493-1302 BC
I1


J1c8a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015) ; Y-DNA personal communication from author


RISE207 Sweden Nordic BA I1-M450/S109




note that this was also pre-I1, but very unlikely ancestral to I1 as it is also negativ for some of the SNPs :





Sweden
Stora Förvar cave, Stora Karlsö Island [SfF11]
M
7500-7250 cal. BP
Pre-I1 (7 op 16)
Genetiker
U5a1
Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2014)

Mesolithic 5500 BC Stora Förvar 11 I1-M253 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/)




the LBK I1 in Hungary is also pré-I1

Fire Haired14
04-01-17, 09:19
Thanks for emailing an author of the paper. It's nice to know they're sequencing the genome of the I1 individual because it'll tell us if he had pre-I1 or not. We have a lot of pre historic Scandinavian genomes. pre-I1 existed in one Mesolithic individual and I1 existed in several late Neolithic/Bronze age individuals. Neolithic and Mesolithic Y DNA is all I2.

Corded Ware Swedes were the same as Corded Ware in Eastern Europe and so far 2/2 have R1a. One had Scandinavian specific R1a-Z284, which takes up about 1/4 of modern Scandinavian Y DNA. Modern Norse can be fitted as about 60-70% Swedish Corded Ware and 30-40% Swedish Funnel Beaker. So, it's possible that I1 is a Funnel Beaker lineage. Modern Scandinavians don't appear to have any Mesolithic Scandinavian ancestry or at least not a significant amount. Because of that I doubt Mesolithic Scandinavians are the source of I1.

bicicleur
04-01-17, 12:36
Thanks for emailing an author of the paper. It's nice to know they're sequencing the genome of the I1 individual because it'll tell us if he had pre-I1 or not. We have a lot of pre historic Scandinavian genomes. pre-I1 existed in one Mesolithic individual and I1 existed in several late Neolithic/Bronze age individuals. Neolithic and Mesolithic Y DNA is all I2.

Corded Ware Swedes were the same as Corded Ware in Eastern Europe and so far 2/2 have R1a. One had Scandinavian specific R1a-Z284, which takes up about 1/4 of modern Scandinavian Y DNA. Modern Norse can be fitted as about 60-70% Swedish Corded Ware and 30-40% Swedish Funnel Beaker. So, it's possible that I1 is a Funnel Beaker lineage. Modern Scandinavians don't appear to have any Mesolithic Scandinavian ancestry or at least not a significant amount. Because of that I doubt Mesolithic Scandinavians are the source of I1.

these are the calls for Stora Forvar

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/

mind you there is always the possibility of a few false positives/negatives
but as you can see many I1 SNP were tested

afaik there is not data about the calls for the LBK I1

holderlin
04-01-17, 22:17
these are the oldest I know



Nordic LN
Sweden
Abekas I [RISE179]
M
2010-1776 BC
I
CTS674, CTS1301, FI3, CTS10941
K1a3
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


RISE179 Sweden Nordic LN I1-Z2765/CTS3506





Nordic Bronze Age
Sweden
Angmollan [RISE207]
M
1493-1302 BC
I1


J1c8a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015) ; Y-DNA personal communication from author


RISE207 Sweden Nordic BA I1-M450/S109




note that this was also pre-I1, but very unlikely ancestral to I1 as it is also negativ for some of the SNPs :





Sweden
Stora Förvar cave, Stora Karlsö Island [SfF11]
M
7500-7250 cal. BP
Pre-I1 (7 op 16)
Genetiker
U5a1
Skoglund 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Skoglund2014)

Mesolithic 5500 BC Stora Förvar 11 I1-M253 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-stora-forvar-11/)




the LBK I1 in Hungary is also pré-I1

Thanks, OK so not ruled out, and it seems to be there by the BA. I think was can all agree on that.

This is all speculation, but I've always held the notion that I1 people were the speakers of the Non-IE germanic substratum language that shaped much of the seafaring lexicon. I1 people must have been formidable. The rest of North (West) Europe was virtually replaced, but I1 held strong. Considering the evidence in the substratum this must have been because of their seafaring knowledge.

bicicleur
04-01-17, 23:33
Thanks, OK so not ruled out, and it seems to be there by the BA. I think was can all agree on that.

This is all speculation, but I've always held the notion that I1 people were the speakers of the Non-IE germanic substratum language that shaped much of the seafaring lexicon. I1 people must have been formidable. The rest of North (West) Europe was virtually replaced, but I1 held strong. Considering the evidence in the substratum this must have been because of their seafaring knowledge.

Bell Beaker people arrived in Northern Denmark, they must have been the R1b-U106


Battle Axe/ Nordic LN
Sweden
Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98]
M
2275-2032 BC
R1b1a2a1a1
M405/S21/U106
K1b1a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


there was no copper, so they made flint daggers instead of copper daggers
the flint was very high quality and found on that area in Northern Denmark
then they started trading with the farmers in the Baltic area, this is where the seafaring came in
goods from the Baltic were traded with western Europe and the Carpathian basin for metals
it was the Nordic bronze age

we have only one Scandinavian TRB DNA
he was not I1



Gökhem Västergötland [regional TRB]
Sweden
Gok4
M
4-5 ka
I2a1b1 L161.1 xS2639
Genetiker 1+ 0 – op 35 onzeker


Funnelbeaker 3000 BC Gökhem 4 I2a1b1-L161.1 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-gokhem-4/)



could I1 have had contacts with the CW people on the Baltic shores prior to their arrival in southern Scandinavia?

MOESAN
06-01-17, 00:30
Is there something wrong with the TRB culture as the carrier of the I1 founder effect in Scandinavia?

Funny, I was just weighting this possibility before to read your post! I was thinking in an hypothesis for "Germanic" Y U106 staying south the Baltic and giving a lift to I1 peoeple (not too evident for these patriarcal clannic tribes) and the, seeing that in fact the excess of I1 ratio to R-U106 are West and East on the Continent, and not central, I thought in the FBK and its western ramifications, kind of melting pot uniting lands of East with Coast of N-W Europe - a more agricultural (spite maritime too) culture without too clannic system could have helped I1 development before future Proto-Germanics (R-U106) was obliged to take in account and old Y-R1a and "younger" I1 (in demic development).

MOESAN
06-01-17, 00:36
Not speaking here about the S-Central Europe Y-I1 (speculation about one case if I don't mistake) it remember me the excess Y-I1/Y R1bU106 (helas, no I1 subclade by me) in Brittany, some parts of Wales, french North/Picardie, East Germany, when compared to Austrians, Flemings and Dutch people. The partly maritime long-barrows culture which took part I think into FBK concretion had surely a role in this?

holderlin
06-01-17, 17:59
Bell Beaker people arrived in Northern Denmark, they must have been the R1b-U106


Battle Axe/ Nordic LN
Sweden
Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98]
M
2275-2032 BC
R1b1a2a1a1
M405/S21/U106
K1b1a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


there was no copper, so they made flint daggers instead of copper daggers
the flint was very high quality and found on that area in Northern Denmark
then they started trading with the farmers in the Baltic area, this is where the seafaring came in
goods from the Baltic were traded with western Europe and the Carpathian basin for metals
it was the Nordic bronze age

we have only one Scandinavian TRB DNA
he was not I1



Gökhem Västergötland [regional TRB]
Sweden
Gok4
M
4-5 ka
I2a1b1 L161.1 xS2639
Genetiker 1+ 0 – op 35 onzeker


Funnelbeaker 3000 BC Gökhem 4 I2a1b1-L161.1 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-gokhem-4/)



could I1 have had contacts with the CW people on the Baltic shores prior to their arrival in southern Scandinavia?

Yes, to your last question. We had CW move intoScandinavia before Bell Beaker, so I imagine that first it was I1 and R1a CWguys, then R1b-U106 with the development of the Nordic Bronze age. But we do have a non-I1 in TRB so the founder I1 I guess could have come along with the U106 during the emergence of the Nordic Bronze age.

However it happened we have non IE seafaringwords in Germanic along with the weird I1 concentration. I would like to believe that these I1 were farmers that allied with IE's and passed along seafaring knowledge, but this is probably way too simple as are most of our models.

holderlin
06-01-17, 18:02
Funny, I was just weighting this possibility before to read your post! I was thinking in an hypothesis for "Germanic" Y U106 staying south the Baltic and giving a lift to I1 peoeple (not too evident for these patriarcal clannic tribes) and the, seeing that in fact the excess of I1 ratio to R-U106 are West and East on the Continent, and not central, I thought in the FBK and its western ramifications, kind of melting pot uniting lands of East with Coast of N-W Europe - a more agricultural (spite maritime too) culture without too clannic system could have helped I1 development before future Proto-Germanics (R-U106) was obliged to take in account and old Y-R1a and "younger" I1 (in demic development).

Yes, this is possible too. It's something like this. That kind of success isn't random in this context. They had to have some advantage in comparison to others in pre-IE Europe.

Judith
07-01-17, 12:53
I always find it difficult to know whether the H mtDNA haplo group is just plain H or maybe it includes the sub clades but it was not fully analysed. Does anyone know?

Alpenjager
08-01-17, 01:35
I'm not an expert in I1 haplogroup. Is correct 5000-4100 ybp for the earlier known branches of this haplogroup? If this origin date showed in YFULL is correct, then I'm extremely surprised. What happened the last 20000 years before this "4 brothers boom"? Looks like they have experienced a heavily extinction.

Is known to which subclade belong those I1 found in western Iran?

I think very interesting this Early Neolithic group. Is known approximately where did this first branching happened?

Fire Haired14
08-01-17, 07:38
I always find it difficult to know whether the H mtDNA haplo group is just plain H or maybe it includes the sub clades but it was not fully analysed. Does anyone know?

An H DNA sample is essentially never tested for all H subclades. So we essentially never know if an H is plain H. Usually H DNA samples are only tested for a handful of popular H subclades or not tested for any H subclades. This is especially true for ancient H DNA samples. Enough H DNA samples have been tested for several H subclades for us to know the frequencies of some H subclades though.

I created a spreadsheet showing the frequencies of H subclades in ancient and modern Europe. See here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HMXkEo8OAnODIGEgK7Dg9HC3PBbjh_zQztghWZ2nJv8/edit#gid=0). The defining feature of European H is a high frequency of H1. A high frequency is also found in NorthWest Africa but not anywhere else in the world. The frequencies of other somewhat popular H subclades like H5 barely differ between different Europeans and Middle Easterners.

patrician
07-04-17, 00:26
The advent of farming would probably have taken place in the foothills of Palestine or in northern Israel (Galilee). A few spots further afield are the Euphrates river and the Damascus Basin. Sites like Ohalo show us that experimentation with cultivation of grains date to 22,000 years ago (Upper Paleolithic) during the Kebaran industry which was characterized by the use of microlithic tools across the Levant region ( Eastern Mediterranean coast) of West Asia's Fertile Crescent. by 14,000 years ago the Natufian culture of the Epipaleolithic succeeded the Kebaran culture. Named after it's "type site" of Wadi an-Natuf in the West Bank, the Natufian culture was characterized by semi-sedentarism even before the introduction of agriculture. The Natufian communities may be the ancestors of the builders of the first neolithic settlements of the region, which may have been the earliest cities in the world. A recent study showed that the Natufians had both Y-DNA E-M123 and MTDNA N1b. The Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, (PPNA) succeeded the Natufian culture by 10,000 years ago, and then came the advent of farming. the PPNA type site is known as Jericho in Palestine but other notable sites are found across the Jordan valley and further afield as well. The PPNA was succeeded by the PPNB by which timethe Neolithic Revolution and its entire package would have reached lands as far as Cyprus and Southern Anatolia. We are lucky today because we actually have genetic studies with data demonstrating the spread of the Neolithic Revolution and it's genetics. MTDNA from Tell Ramad in southern Syria dated to 8,000 years ago ( during the PPNB) showed that 40% or so of samples belonged to mtdna K. Today, a third of Ashkenazi jewish females belong to this haplogroup, not to mention over 10% of Druze, Palestinians, Kurds, Greek Cypriots and Neolithic Mediterranean Cardial/Epicardial samples, Central European Linear Pottery Culture samples etc. Today it is widely believed that Neolithic European women would have carried mtdna haplogroups K, N and X. Y-dna's G2a, H2, T1a and E-M123 are associated with the expansion of the Neolithic from it's original homeland in a proto-Druze like population around Palestine towards the Aegean sea of Greece and then subsequently across the south-eastern Mediterranean sea.