PDA

View Full Version : Mezolithic-Neolithic vs. Chalcolithic-Early Iron Age Y-DNA landscape of Europe



Tomenable
23-05-15, 12:36
I have recently made two maps of ancient Y-DNA from Europe.

First represents the Mesolithic-Neolithic period in Europe, 2nd represents the Chalcolithic-Early Iron Age period in Central Europe only.

1. The distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe in period ca. 6000 BC - ca. 3000 BC, with a few exceptions after 3000 BC:

The exceptions (after 3000 BC) include e.g. two samples from Poland - they are dated at approximately 2800 BC and belong to Corded Ware culture, but I decided to include them because probably they represent assimilated Neolithic population in that new Corded culture.

Also in Russia near the border with Belarus (in Smolensk oblast and Pskov oblast) only one sample of R1a is dated at 4000 BC, while the other 3 samples (two R1a and one N1c) are dated at 2500 BC - these 3 belong to "Zhizhitskaya culture" (I have no idea what it was).

Each circle in the map represents one sample, but note that locations are not accurate (for example most of G2 samples from southern France are from just one cemetery - they were found in the Treilles cave in Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul commune of Aveyron department):

I1 oraz I = I1 and I (one of these 2 samples is I1 from Hungary dated at ca. 7500 years ago, the other one is only given as I):

http://s2.postimg.org/zebg23dw9/Y_DNA_8_do_5_kya.png

=================================

Second map:

2. Y-DNA hg-s in Central Europe in period ca. 2800 BC - ca. 700 BC (11 out of 12 samples of I2a are from one cemetery - a cave near Dorste):

Legend (in English):

KCS = Corded Ware cultural horizon
KPP = Urnfield cultural horizon
BB = Bell Beaker cultural horizon
KŁ = Lusatian culture
KH = Hallstatt culture
KU = Unetice culture
Kyjatice culture
Mezocsat culture

I2 klad niepodany = I2 subclade not given (these are Unetice culture samples from Eulau)
J albo I = J or I (one of two CWC samples from Jagodno from ca. 2800 BC)

Such text = places of burials

In this map I included also the same two samples from Poland (dated at ca. 2800 BC) as in the first map:

http://s11.postimg.org/gqpx5ddib/Copper_to_Iron.png

The map shows burials from period ca. 2800 BC (Jagodno) to ca. 700 BC (Mitterkirchen).

==========================
==========================

What can be seen is a strong correlation between Bell Beakers (BB) and R1b, as well as between Corded Wares (KCS) and R1a.

By contrast Urnfield cultures are mixed, with R1a in the east and R1b in the west.

Bell Beaker cultures are thought to have originated in Iberia - so I wonder what is the source of R1b in those cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Origins


There have been numerous proposals by archaeologists as to the origins of the Bell Beaker culture, and debates continued on for decades. Several regions of origin have been postulated, notably the Iberian peninsula, the Netherlands and Central Europe.

Because we have Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs cave in northern Spain, but we also have R1b from Samara Oblast in Russia.

Could it be that eastern R1b first made its way to Iberia, and then expanded from Iberia with Bell Beakers ???

Or perhaps those cultures originated in the Netherlands or in Central Europe, and not in Iberia ???

Fluffy
23-05-15, 17:58
Assimilated neolithic population in the new corded ware? That G could be part of the corded ware culture.

LeBrok
23-05-15, 21:23
Assimilated neolithic population in the new corded ware? That G could be part of the corded ware culture. Sure, that's how they got the farming genes from. From G and E folks.

Sile
23-05-15, 21:33
Sure, that's how they got the farming genes from. From G and E folks.

But he should have made the cutoff at 4500BC like what Haak and others state - A replacement of peoples at 4500BC in central Europe.

LeBrok
23-05-15, 21:42
But he should have made the cutoff at 4500BC like what Haak and others state - A replacement of peoples at 4500BC in central Europe. It was partial replacement, and it replaced people with 80% of EEF with people with 40%. The EEF which came originally from G and E guys.

Sile
23-05-15, 23:52
It was partial replacement, and it replaced people with 80% of EEF with people with 40%. The EEF which came originally from G and E guys.

Which E marker in central europe/ Germany, all I see is G2a, T1a, F and I markers before 4500BC

Fluffy
24-05-15, 00:22
It was partial replacement, and it replaced people with 80% of EEF with people with 40%. The EEF which came originally from G and E guys.

And this is based on what? The opinion of one man?

Fluffy
24-05-15, 00:26
Which E marker in central europe/ Germany, all I see is G2a, T1a, F and I markers before 4500BC

Yes this gets annoying, wherever there is some G, there has to be E too, even though there is not.

Angela
24-05-15, 01:00
The EEF would also have come from the I1 and I2 men, and let's not forget the autosomal input of the women. You can see the autosomal composition of the Central European I2 men in the Gamba et al paper:

This is the PCA from Gamba et al. Both the KO1 hunter gatherer and the NE7 Neolithic farmer are yDna I2 bearing men. Those y bearing men went from plotting north of Ajvide to plotting with Sardinians.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

This is the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/full/ncomms6257.html

Based on still small numbers of samples, we don't know if yDna "E" was only a part of the Cardial movement or whether it also formed part of cultures like LBK. At any rate, Cardial then spread from the the coasts into the interior, as this recent paper points out. Also, although the two migrating groups might have been a bit different because they might have encountered slightly different Mesolithic groups as they moved across Europe, they were enough alike that all the Neolithic farmer remains cluster very near one another.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125521

There is a discussion here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31194-First-Neolithic-Ancient-Dna-from-France

That may actually help explain the relatively high numbers of yDna "E" in the center of France which have long puzzled people. Of course, we don't have fine grained resolution from those old studies so it's hard to know precisely what subclades are involved.


Fluffy: And this is based on what? The opinion of one man?

Of course not...it's based on Lazaridis et al, and Haak et al, (Did you take a look at how many of the world's population geneticists signed on to those papers?)and Gamba et al, and other papers. No one knows precisely how much replacement took place in which precise areas, but the ancestry of the people in the Central European Middle Neolithic was predominantly from the Near East and the ancestry of the newcomers was about 40-50% similar to modern Near Eastern populations. Those are rough parameters, of course. The most isolated regions of the northeast may have had additional input from remaining hunter-gatherers , in my opinion, but time will tell. As we get more samples, and the academics come out with some new modeling, we'll perhaps get a better handle on the amount of actual replacement. (Certain areas could have depopulated, etc.)

Sile
24-05-15, 01:18
Yes this gets annoying, wherever there is some G, there has to be E too, even though there is not.

what do you mean?


the Neolithic findings pre 4500BC ( G2, T1, F and I) are all within 10km of the Goseck circles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_circular_enclosures_in_Central_Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle)

Fluffy
24-05-15, 01:50
what do you mean?


the Neolithic findings pre 4500BC ( G2, T1, F and I) are all within 10km of the Goseck circles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle

and
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goseck_circle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_circular_enclosures_in_Central_Europe


I was just saying people tend to put E and G together for some reason. I don't even think E is Neolithic.

LeBrok
24-05-15, 02:36
I have recently made two maps of ancient Y-DNA from Europe.

First represents the Mesolithic-Neolithic period in Europe, 2nd represents the Chalcolithic-Early Iron Age period in Central Europe only.

1. The distribution of Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe in period ca. 6000 BC - ca. 3000 BC, with a few exceptions after 3000 BC:

The exceptions (after 3000 BC) include e.g. two samples from Poland - they are dated at approximately 2800 BC and belong to Corded Ware culture, but I decided to include them because probably they represent assimilated Neolithic population in that new Corded culture.

Also in Russia near the border with Belarus (in Smolensk oblast and Pskov oblast) only one sample of R1a is dated at 4000 BC, while the other 3 samples (two R1a and one N1c) are dated at 2500 BC - these 3 belong to "Zhizhitskaya culture" (I have no idea what it was).

Each circle in the map represents one sample, but note that locations are not accurate (for example most of G2 samples from southern France are from just one cemetery - they were found in the Treilles cave in Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul commune of Aveyron department):

I1 oraz I = I1 and I (one of these 2 samples is I1 from Hungary dated at ca. 7500 years ago, the other one is only given as I):

http://s2.postimg.org/zebg23dw9/Y_DNA_8_do_5_kya.png

=================================

Second map:

2. Y-DNA hg-s in Central Europe in period ca. 2800 BC - ca. 700 BC (11 out of 12 samples of I2a are from one cemetery - a cave near Dorste):

Legend (in English):

KCS = Corded Ware cultural horizon
KPP = Urnfield cultural horizon
BB = Bell Beaker cultural horizon
KŁ = Lusatian culture
KH = Hallstatt culture
KU = Unetice culture
Kyjatice culture
Mezocsat culture

I2 klad niepodany = I2 subclade not given (these are Unetice culture samples from Eulau)
J albo I = J or I (one of two CWC samples from Jagodno from ca. 2800 BC)

Such text = places of burials

In this map I included also the same two samples from Poland (dated at ca. 2800 BC) as in the first map:

http://s11.postimg.org/gqpx5ddib/Copper_to_Iron.png

The map shows burials from period ca. 2800 BC (Jagodno) to ca. 700 BC (Mitterkirchen).

==========================
==========================

What can be seen is a strong correlation between Bell Beakers (BB) and R1b, as well as between Corded Wares (KCS) and R1a.

By contrast Urnfield cultures are mixed, with R1a in the east and R1b in the west.

Bell Beaker cultures are thought to have originated in Iberia - so I wonder what is the source of R1b in those cultures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Origins



Because we have Neolithic R1b from Els Trocs cave in northern Spain, but we also have R1b from Samara Oblast in Russia.

Could it be that eastern R1b first made its way to Iberia, and then expanded from Iberia with Bell Beakers ???

Or perhaps those cultures originated in the Netherlands or in Central Europe, and not in Iberia ???

Cool maps dude, thanks. However I have problem with discerning colours again. Is it too much to ask you to use more contrasting colours please? Also can you implement same hg colours in every map?
I'm used to Maciamo's colour scheme. Perhaps we can use some standardization in this field? Just suggestions.

Angela
24-05-15, 02:47
I was just saying people tend to put E and G together for some reason. I don't even think E is Neolithic.

So, the dating and analysis of the yDna of that Neolithic sample from Spain was done incorrectly?

Maleth
24-05-15, 02:48
I was just saying people tend to put E and G together for some reason. I don't even think E is Neolithic.

The Neolithic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Speakerlink-new.svg/11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/En-us-Neolithic.ogg)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-us-Neolithic.ogg)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˌ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)iː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɵ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)θ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#cite_note-1) Era, or Period, from νέος (néos, "new") and λίθος (líthos, "stone"), or New Stone Age, was a period in the development of humantechnology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology), beginning about 10,200 BC, according to the ASPRO chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASPRO_chronology), in some parts of the Middle East, and later in other parts of the world[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#cite_note-Bellwood-2) and ending between 4,500 and 2,000 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic


which time period would the 7000 E-V13 year old skeleton found in North Spain fall?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe

Maleth
24-05-15, 02:50
So, the dating and analysis of the yDna of that Neolithic sample from Spain was done incorrectly?

you beat me to it :)

Angela
24-05-15, 02:52
you beat me to it :)

Yes, but yours is the irrefutable and complete answer. :smile:

LeBrok
24-05-15, 03:10
It is possible that E hitchhiked a ride with culture of G farmers same as hunter-gatherer hg I did, since early Neolithic. I'm still thinking that different haplogroups spread by means of material advances. G with farming, E with pottery, J or T with copper or maritime trade. F and C could have been in minority of European HGs, or it was also as minority clades of Near Eastern farmers.
I can't wait for Near East ancient samples, Natufians and the rest of fertile Crescent.

Fluffy
24-05-15, 03:23
The Neolithic http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Speakerlink-new.svg/11px-Speakerlink-new.svg.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/En-us-Neolithic.ogg)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En-us-Neolithic.ogg)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)ˌ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)iː (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɵ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)l (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)θ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)ɪ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#cite_note-1) Era, or Period, from νέος (néos, "new") and λίθος (líthos, "stone"), or New Stone Age, was a period in the development of humantechnology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology), beginning about 10,200 BC, according to the ASPRO chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASPRO_chronology), in some parts of the Middle East, and later in other parts of the world[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic#cite_note-Bellwood-2) and ending between 4,500 and 2,000 BC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic


which time period would the 7000 E-V13 year old skeleton found in North Spain fall?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe




Most likely he was a wanderer from North Africa.

Angela
24-05-15, 04:39
Most likely he was a wanderer from North Africa.

There is culture and then there is geography. Neolithic is a culture, not a continent. The sample was "E", in a Neolithic community, in Spain in 7000 BCE. End of story.

I think it came east with Cardial, but even if it didn't it doesn't change the fact that it was in Europe 7,000 BC.

Maleth
24-05-15, 12:48
Most likely he was a wanderer from North Africa.

Its good to get informed about the subject....this might help you ;)

Interesting results from the lineage analysis can be summarized as follows: (i) R-L23*, the eastern branch of haplogroup R-M269, is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13, which probably originated in Western Asia, has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the spread of farming marked by haplogroup G-P15, J-M410 representatives; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779

Fluffy
24-05-15, 17:01
Its good to get informed about the subject....this might help you ;)

Interestinghttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#8343288)results from the lineage analysis can be summarized as follows: (i) R-L23*, the eastern branch of haplogroup R-M269, is present in Eastern Bulgaria since the post glacial period; (ii) haplogroup E-V13, which probably originated in Western Asia, has a Mesolithic age in Bulgaria from where it expanded after the spread of farming marked by haplogroup G-P15, J-M410 representatives; (iii) haplogroup J-M241 probably reflects the Neolithic westward expansion of farmers from the earliest sites along the Black Sea.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0056779

Thanks Maleth for this information. I appreciate it.

Greying Wanderer
24-05-15, 20:12
Which E marker in central europe/ Germany, all I see is G2a, T1a, F and I markers before 4500BC

If there were two strands of neolithic farmer: an E strand out of the Levant that mostly spread along the maritime route and a G strand from further east which mostly spread via the Danube route, then you might expect the G and E to be merged in the south but as you go further north the E to drop away leaving mostly or only G.

Sile
24-05-15, 20:21
If there were two strands of neolithic farmer: an E strand out of the Levant that mostly spread along the maritime route and a G strand from further east which mostly spread via the Danube route, then you might expect the G and E to be merged in the south but as you go further north the E to drop away leaving mostly or only G.

there are some like yourself that make sense and others are in fantasy lands

The Neolithic farmers in germany via the haak paper, which are G2, T1, F and I markers are noted as north-anatolia or blacksea anatolians and later called Pontic Anatolians.

The E is a northafrica/levant marker to migrate into Europe

The J are the confusing ones................IMO , J1 was with E marker and J2 originated in G2 caucasus/zargos lands and came into Europe slightly later than the G2 Neolithics in Europe

MOESAN
25-05-15, 00:05
Most likely he was a wanderer from North Africa.
I think E-V13 has very more chances to be born in Europe than in North-Africa, even if his ancestors came almost surely from North East Africa. In the today hotspot big region for Y-E-V13, the most variance for Y-E1b (but almost all of them V13) are on the coasts of Dalmatia = maritime Croatia, even if the frequence hotspots are in Kosovo, Greece, Albania, and a bit less dense, in Macedonia, Serbia, Serbians of Bosnia, Bulgaria and East Romania.
I thought some times ago Y-E-V13 had made its road along with Y-G2a during the Neolithic advance. Now I'm less sure concerning dates. Maybe its change of gravity center in Balkans is linked to Chalcolithic/Bronze Ages under a Y-J2 launching. Its destiny could have been there linked to the Y-J2 (+ some local Y-I2a1b and some Y-G2a) expansion in the frame of later Cucuteni-Tripolye expansion until Southern Belarus. evidently the later steppic I-Ean and Slavic developments have erased this (supposed by myself) first colonization in Northern lands!
hypothesis upon the today data I have. So, don't disagree totally with you. Y-E1b-V13 could have had a complicated story.

LeBrok
25-05-15, 02:36
I think E-V13 has very more chances to be born in Europe than in North-Africa, even if his ancestors came almost surely from North East Africa. In the today hotspot big region for Y-E-V13, the most variance for Y-E1b (but almost all of them V13) are on the coasts of Dalmatia = maritime Croatia, even if the frequence hotspots are in Kosovo, Greece, Albania, and a bit less dense, in Macedonia, Serbia, Serbians of Bosnia, Bulgaria and East Romania.
I thought some times ago Y-E-V13 had made its road along with Y-G2a during the Neolithic advance. Now I'm less sure concerning dates. Maybe its change of gravity center in Balkans is linked to Chalcolithic/Bronze Ages under a Y-J2 launching. Its destiny could have been there linked to the Y-J2 (+ some local Y-I2a1b and some Y-G2a) expansion in the frame of later Cucuteni-Tripolye expansion until Southern Belarus. evidently the later steppic I-Ean and Slavic developments have erased this (supposed by myself) first colonization in Northern lands!
hypothesis upon the today data I have. So, don't disagree totally with you. Y-E1b-V13 could have had a complicated story.

I agree, and this is how I see it in detail.

All modern Y haplogourps since Neolithic had spread around only as farmers and herders. There were no pure hunter gatherers that could spread so successfully since Neolithic, especially into farmers territory. First they needed to meet farmers, mix with them, acquire their successful farmer genes or transfer their Y chromosome, and only then could explode as successful Y haplogroup. Even IE herders (R1) needed to acquire farmer (Armenian like) genes to build up numbers and then expend/conquer.

Let's say that Natufians/fertile crescent first farmers were G2a folks. This means that only G2a carrying farmers were expanding first all over Near East and South Europe. When they were expending they met and assimilated Y haplogroups of local hunter gatherers. Only after this assimilation and giving local Y hg set of farmer genes and culture, these new Y hg could also expend by over-breeding and farther expansion in HGs territory.

This means that we should find G2a mostly, sometimes only, in very Early Neolithic sites, before others were assimilated and turned into farmers. They were like Borg from Star Trek, lol. Resistance was futile.

I'm sure there had to be more haplogroups than G2a in Fertile Crescent. Perhaps G2a expended initially so fast that didn't have time to interact much with H-Gs, and carrying them into Europe? However, from recent research we learned that Y haplogroups really compete with each other (on genetic) level and every couple of thousand of years old haplogroups go extinct and new explode, even if genetic base (autosomal) stays fairly unchanged. On average we still carry about 50% of first farmers genetic material, however their Y chromosome G2a is almost extinct these days. It is counter intuitive, and makes disyphering haplogroups of original populations rather difficult.

Maybe G2a was rather "weak" comparable to other Y hgs? Maybe it made men too peaceful, or a sexual, or something else? Whenever it met other haplogroups it was losing the battle. It had met I2, R1b or J2 and after couple of thousand of years populations turned into almost exclusively I2, R1b or J2.
Isn't Hungarian Neolithic telling us this story? Instead of finding mostly G2a among farmers we find I2, F and C, the local hunter gatherer haplogroups among farmers. However atosomally they were still 90% ENF.

Maleth
25-05-15, 09:02
Thanks Maleth for this information. I appreciate it.

Most welcome

Tomenable
25-05-15, 15:07
On average we still carry about 50% of first farmers genetic material, however their Y chromosome G2a is almost extinct these days. It is counter intuitive.

Not necessarily, there are many possible models leading to this scenario. For example such a simple model:

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png

LeBrok
25-05-15, 15:34
Not necessarily, there are many possible models leading to this scenario. For example such a simple model:

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png
Sure, there might have been different forcings, environmental conditions, etc to require a different model. However, this is not what we observe in Hungarian Neolithic case. Automatically they have became all farmers, but G2a became minority. The sample base is rather small to be sure, but this is what it looks like.
G2a guys were in position of power over locals, in numbers and in wealth. It is impossible that they couldn't get brides to procreate, and yet their Y hg was losing the battle.

PS. Is there explanation to the model above why, if things being equal and random, Y hg G is diminishing together with it's autosomal component?

Tomenable
25-05-15, 19:02
Automatically they have became all farmers, but G2a became minority.

IMO farmers were not all G2a, but had other HGs too. Plus, farmers taught some hunters how to farm, or assimilated them. Farming was spreading not just through demic diffusion (migrations of farmers), but also cultural transition (hunters learning how to farm).


PS. Is there explanation to the model above why, if things being equal and random, Y hg G is diminishing together with it's autosomal component?

In my model things are not "equal and random", but R come as conquerors and take as many women as they want, while G only have the rest of women. PIE people formed highly patriarchal societies, which was reflected by their language (as this video explains):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I

Tomenable
25-05-15, 19:02
By contrast, societies of Neolithic farmers were less patriarchal (some of them were even matriarchal) and also more egalitarian:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6IgYxfTYTg


G2a guys were in position of power over locals, in numbers and in wealth.

Nope. Those societies weren't patriarchal. They were often matriarchal, so groups of women were in position of power over others. Those Neolithic societies also tended to be quite egalitarian, which was reflected for example by their collective burials in mass graves. Neolithic cultures didn't have such a social ladder like that of PIEs, who buried their prominent individuals with rich grave goods, in large kurgans.

Tomenable
25-05-15, 19:34
Is there explanation to the model above why, if things being equal and random, Y hg G is diminishing together with it's autosomal component?

Because in that model R came together with their women, and because things took place rapidly - during just 3 generations.

In 1st generation I assumed that each R took 3 wifes, and in 2nd generation each R took 1,5 wifes on average. While G took what left.

If the rate at which R was increasing it's percent was slower (for example 1,25 wifes per each R on average), then replacement of G by R would have taken longer time (more generations), but the end result would be with a higher share of Neolithic autosomal DNA. For example instead of 25% G Y-DNA and 58% of G autosomal DNA after 3 generations, we would have 25% G Y-DNA and - say - 70% of G autosomal DNA, but after - say - 15 generations, or something like this (these figures are of course guesses, not calculations).

Of course instead of "wifes" I should have used "wifes and concumbines". Or rather "each R had children with ...".

Because it did not necessarily require marriage to pass their seed to next generations.

If R came without women - just males - and had children with multiple local women, there there would also be 75% R Y-DNA, but more of local autosomal. In my model they came with women, and in 1st generation each of them had children with their own female and 2 other ones.

In my model also there was no population growth but a simple replacement (each couple had 2 children living to adulthood).

I wanted it to be simple. In reality there would be some population growth, so each generation would be a bit larger.

Sile
25-05-15, 19:38
I agree, and this is how I see it in detail.

All modern Y haplogourps since Neolithic had spread around only as farmers and herders. There were no pure hunter gatherers that could spread so successfully since Neolithic, especially into farmers territory. First they needed to meet farmers, mix with them, acquire their successful farmer genes or transfer their Y chromosome, and only then could explode as successful Y haplogroup. Even IE herders (R1) needed to acquire farmer (Armenian like) genes to build up numbers and then expend/conquer.

Let's say that Natufians/fertile crescent first farmers were G2a folks. This means that only G2a carrying farmers were expanding first all over Near East and South Europe. When they were expending they met and assimilated Y haplogroups of local hunter gatherers. Only after this assimilation and giving local Y hg set of farmer genes and culture, these new Y hg could also expend by over-breeding and farther expansion in HGs territory.

This means that we should find G2a mostly, sometimes only, in very Early Neolithic sites, before others were assimilated and turned into farmers. They were like Borg from Star Trek, lol. Resistance was futile.

I'm sure there had to be more haplogroups than G2a in Fertile Crescent. Perhaps G2a expended initially so fast that didn't have time to interact much with H-Gs, and carrying them into Europe? However, from recent research we learned that Y haplogroups really compete with each other (on genetic) level and every couple of thousand of years old haplogroups go extinct and new explode, even if genetic base (autosomal) stays fairly unchanged. On average we still carry about 50% of first farmers genetic material, however their Y chromosome G2a is almost extinct these days. It is counter intuitive, and makes disyphering haplogroups of original populations rather difficult.

Maybe G2a was rather "weak" comparable to other Y hgs? Maybe it made men too peaceful, or a sexual, or something else? Whenever it met other haplogroups it was losing the battle. It had met I2, R1b or J2 and after couple of thousand of years populations turned into almost exclusively I2, R1b or J2.
Isn't Hungarian Neolithic telling us this story? Instead of finding mostly G2a among farmers we find I2, F and C, the local hunter gatherer haplogroups among farmers. However atosomally they were still 90% ENF.

You do realise that IJ was once one haplogroup with its own SNP's
IJ (M429, P123, P124, P125, P126, P127, P129, P130, S2, S22)
they split off somewhere ...........like LT was once one marker
....... LT haplogroup (L298 = P326). but this was found with origins in the Sind Valley of Kashmir

If there is no early J in Europe , but there is early I in Europe , then the markers do not originate in Europe

LeBrok
26-05-15, 01:51
IMO farmers were not all G2a, but had other HGs too. Plus, farmers taught some hunters how to farm, or assimilated them. Farming was spreading not just through demic diffusion (migrations of farmers), but also cultural transition (hunters learning how to farm). In individual cases yes, but not in tribal, broader spectrum. If farming was a cultural phenomenon we would have cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale, same in case of Australian Aborigines, or other pure hunter gatherers. No such cases recorded, to my knowledge. We also observe this in European Neolithic. There are no farming communities consisting of hunter gatherers, or even mostly hunter gatherers.
Natufians turned farmers very slowly. At least 10 k years of evolution of becoming farmers.




In my model things are not "equal and random", but R come as conquerors and take as many women as they want, while G only have the rest of women. PIE people formed highly patriarchal societies, which was reflected by their language (as this video explains):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I In your model Y haplogroup R progresses at same rate as their autosomal genome overtaking G2a. This is not observed in Neolithic Hungary. It is not observed in Yamnaya either.
It is possible that Near Eastern farmers came already with slightly mixed Y hromosomes, but the ones that we found in their communities beside G2a, especially in late Neolithic, are turning to be European HG's haplogroups.

In Iberia today we have mostly IE R1b clades, at the same time they are more than 50% EEF like.

Ones we have samples from Early Neolithic from Fertile Crescent, things should clear up.

LeBrok
26-05-15, 05:11
By contrast, societies of Neolithic farmers were less patriarchal (some of them were even matriarchal) and also more egalitarian:

Maybe they had low testosterone and low sex drive?




Nope. Those societies weren't patriarchal. They were often matriarchal, so groups of women were in position of power over others. Those Neolithic societies also tended to be quite egalitarian, which was reflected for example by their collective burials in mass graves. Neolithic cultures didn't have such a social ladder like that of PIEs, who buried their prominent individuals with rich grave goods, in large kurgans.
Whatever it was it needs to explain why farmer autosomal was very high but their Y G2a very low in mid and late Neolithic. H-Gs transferred their Y DNA into farmers but not the Autosomal. It has to be a big reason.

Greying Wanderer
26-05-15, 05:18
there are some like yourself that make sense and others are in fantasy lands

The Neolithic farmers in germany via the haak paper, which are G2, T1, F and I markers are noted as north-anatolia or blacksea anatolians and later called Pontic Anatolians.

The E is a northafrica/levant marker to migrate into Europe

The J are the confusing ones................IMO , J1 was with E marker and J2 originated in G2 caucasus/zargos lands and came into Europe slightly later than the G2 Neolithics in Europe

Yeah, I'm thinking the two streams were (very roughly):
E+J1 (from Levant, via coastal expansion)
G+J2 (from somewhere further east, via Danubian expansion)

so you get a mixture of E&G in the south but mostly G as you go further north (possible exception north Atlantic coast cos also coastal).

LeBrok
26-05-15, 05:24
Because in that model R came together with their women, and because things took place rapidly - during just 3 generations.

In 1st generation I assumed that each R took 3 wifes, and in 2nd generation each R took 1,5 wifes on average. While G took what left.

If the rate at which R was increasing it's percent was slower (for example 1,25 wifes per each R on average), then replacement of G by R would have taken longer time (more generations), but the end result would be with a higher share of Neolithic autosomal DNA. For example instead of 25% G Y-DNA and 58% of G autosomal DNA after 3 generations, we would have 25% G Y-DNA and - say - 70% of G autosomal DNA, but after - say - 15 generations, or something like this (these figures are of course guesses, not calculations).

Of course instead of "wifes" I should have used "wifes and concumbines". Or rather "each R had children with ...".

Because it did not necessarily require marriage to pass their seed to next generations.

If R came without women - just males - and had children with multiple local women, there there would also be 75% R Y-DNA, but more of local autosomal. In my model they came with women, and in 1st generation each of them had children with their own female and 2 other ones.

In my model also there was no population growth but a simple replacement (each couple had 2 children living to adulthood).

I wanted it to be simple. In reality there would be some population growth, so each generation would be a bit larger.

It explains explosion of R in farmer community. Now explain why farmer autosomal is disproportionally higher in relation to hg R? R coming with their women doesn't help to explain.
It has to be something genetic making chromosome R very successful, but also something genetic made farmer autosomal successful too. Just mixing, conquering, killing, stealing women or cultural education can't explain it. Not mentioning that they didn't know who carries R haplogoup or who is autosomally a farmer.

Greying Wanderer
26-05-15, 05:48
In individual cases yes, but not in tribal, broader spectrum. If farming was a cultural phenomenon we would have cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale, same in case of Australian Aborigines, or other pure hunter gatherers. No such cases recorded, to my knowledge.

However there are lots of recorded cases where HGs were recruited by farmers/ranchers as workers so maybe those central european sites with HG ydna in a farming context were similar?

LeBrok
26-05-15, 07:56
However there are lots of recorded cases where HGs were recruited by farmers/ranchers as workers so maybe those central european sites with HG ydna in a farming context were similar? There are individual cases of willing laborers. We shouldn't exclude labour by force in form of slavery. We know how common it was in the past.
There was huge effort by white man to culturally change the ways of American Natives, through schools, convents, and forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle. In overwhelming numbers these efforts didn't bring expected results.
We should also noted that central American Natives had no problem with embracing farming, large scale farming. We know, however, that they were farmers before Spaniards showed up.
This points to farming (repetitive hard work, planning and scheduling, sedentary lifestyle, etc) being a set of genetic traits. Slowly build up in populations for thousands of years of experimentation with farming. Without these traits you can't make one to farm. They would rather roam in bands all day and hunt, or lie around and sleep. The proper H-G way of life. Predispositions make us behave naturally in certain ways.

Maleth
26-05-15, 11:35
Maybe they had low testosterone and low sex drive?

Zinc is an important mineral to a healthy sex drive and its found mostly in animal products. I think Hunter gatherers were much higher on meat, and maybe later adopted a more animal raising farming technique (and the land permited it with greener pastures) in comparison to a high grain/vegtable yield. It can make sense.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 16:32
It explains explosion of R in farmer community. Now explain why farmer autosomal is disproportionally higher in relation to hg R?

I think I already explained that - quite simply, R had children with Neolithic farmer women. My model shows that.

Today in Paraguay overwhelming majority have Spanish Y-DNA haplogroups, even though their autosomal DNA is largely native Guarani.


Just mixing, conquering, killing, stealing women or cultural education can't explain it.

It can perfectly explain it.


Not mentioning that they didn't know who carries R haplogoup or who is autosomally a farmer.

They did not have to know it.


This points to farming (repetitive hard work, planning and scheduling, sedentary lifestyle, etc) being a set of genetic traits. Slowly build up in populations for thousands of years of experimentation with farming. Without these traits you can't make one to farm.

This claim is totally ridiculous. It is like claiming that you cannot drive a car if you don't have Karl Benz's DNA.

Innovations like farming, radio, factories, cars, etc. are invented by very small groups of people, and spread through cultural transition.

Overwhelming majority of car mechanics and of people with driving licence are NOT descendants of Karl Bez.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 16:41
Whatever it was it needs to explain why farmer autosomal was very high but their Y G2a very low in mid and late Neolithic

All that we have are ridiculously small sample sizes from ridiculously small number of places.

It is like talking about genetic structure of all Europeans based on 10 inhabitants of 2 villages.


H-Gs transferred their Y DNA into farmers but not the Autosomal.

Everyone inherits about 50% of their autosomal DNA from father, and about 50% from mother.

But if R marries a 100% Neolithic farmer women, their son will still have R but will be 50% Neolithic.

If that son then marries a 100% Neolithic women then their son will also have R, but will be 75% Neolithiic.

If that son then marries a 75% Neolithic women, their son will still have R, but will be 87,5% Neolithic.

So frequencies of haplogroups can change drastically without so much change in autosomal DNA.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 16:50
In your model Y haplogroup R progresses at same rate as their autosomal genome overtaking G2a.

Nope.

In my model Y haplogroup R increased from 20% to 75% but autosomal component brought by them increased from 20% only to 42%.

So no, definitely in my model R progressed at a much faster (nearly two times faster) rate than their autosomal genome.

It is possible to make a model in which haplogroups R replaces G2a with even less autosomal impact of immigrants.

But that would require longer time (more generations). In my model the change of G2a into R was extremely rapid, only 3 generations.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 16:56
If farming was a cultural phenomenon we would have cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale

There were cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale.

Moreover - there were cases of North American Natives domesticating horses and turning from farming to nomadic lifestyle in few decades.

All that horse-riding nomadic culture known from "Western movies" emerged since around year 1700 onwards.


It is possible that Near Eastern farmers came already with slightly mixed Y hromosomes, but the ones that we found in their communities beside G2a, especially in late Neolithic, are turning to be European HG's haplogroups.

Which ones? There are only few Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe.

Haplogroups T, E, H, F* and such were found among Neolithic farmers - but not in hunter burials.

LeBrok
26-05-15, 17:11
There were cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale. Can you find out more details about these tribes?


Moreover - there were cases of North American Natives domesticating horses and turning from farming to nomadic lifestyle in few decades.

All that horse-riding nomadic culture known from "Western movies" emerged since around 1700 onwards. They were nomads before they domesticated horses. Many if not most HGs fallow their favorite prey in seasonal routs. They didn't need to breed horses, because horses found their natural environment in the prairies. It is like a steppe. So they were still far away from being herders in a true sense. Not mentioning the divide to being true farmer.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 17:14
Let's say that Natufians/fertile crescent first farmers were G2a folks.

When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.


They were nomads before they domesticated horses.

Hidatsa and Pawnee tribes were first farmers, then switched to being horse-riding nomads.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 17:27
we find I2, F and C, the local hunter gatherer haplogroups among farmers.

F* is not found in Mesolithic - only in Neolithic samples - so on what basis do you claim that F* did not come with farmers, but was local ???

LeBrok
26-05-15, 17:27
This claim is totally ridiculous. It is like claiming that you cannot drive a car if you don't have Karl Benz's DNA.

Innovations like farming, radio, factories, cars, etc. are invented by very small groups of people, and spread through cultural transition.

Overwhelming majority of car mechanics and of people with driving licence are NOT descendants of Karl Bez.
Ridiculous is to compare any technology which was invented 100 years ago, and its effect on genome, to farming which had beginnings 20 thousand years ago. Don't you think that 20 thousand years can bring genetic mutations to enhance abilities to farm? Especially if gives way more food than hunting, much bigger population, being a very strong evolutionary forcing. Just look how fast lactose persistence gene spread through Norther Europe. Just because the milk was there and it was very beneficial.
I'm starting to think that you don't "believe" in natural selection.

I'll address your model when back from work.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 17:43
I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

Greying Wanderer
26-05-15, 19:03
There are individual cases of willing laborers. We shouldn't exclude labour by force in form of slavery. We know how common it was in the past.
There was huge effort by white man to culturally change the ways of American Natives, through schools, convents, and forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle. In overwhelming numbers these efforts didn't bring expected results.
We should also noted that central American Natives had no problem with embracing farming, large scale farming. We know, however, that they were farmers before Spaniards showed up.
This points to farming (repetitive hard work, planning and scheduling, sedentary lifestyle, etc) being a set of genetic traits. Slowly build up in populations for thousands of years of experimentation with farming. Without these traits you can't make one to farm. They would rather roam in bands all day and hunt, or lie around and sleep. The proper H-G way of life. Predispositions make us behave naturally in certain ways.


I 3/4 agree with you - turning a HG into a farmer is hard/impossible (unless they're enslaved) but there are a large number of examples of HGs being successfully recruited to work as *herders* on the edges of farming territory.

Australia: http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/15/1226075/553655-180611-raparapa.jpg

The Spanish recruited Amerindians to work on their ranches both in South America and New Mexico. (This was how the Plains Indians learned about horses.)

I agree that certain genetic traits are necessary for a full farming culture - humans have to be pacified to farm - but herding is like an interim stage between HG and farmer.

(In a way humans were domesticated by wheat, rice and millet.)

My point is the ancient ydna C, I etc men found in a farming context (edit:in neolithic Europe) may have been recruited shepherds like those aboriginal stockmen rather than full farmers.

Greying Wanderer
26-05-15, 19:17
I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

I don't think it's about learning to farm I think it's about having the genetic traits necessary to farm: patience, hard work, looking ahead etc, whereas the HG lifestyle (at least for the men) mostly involves doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping.

#

The farming = human domestication argument actually supports your case: farmers are domesticated humans, HGs are wild humans, herders are in between.

So in a single fight HG > farmer (except usually it's not a single fight and the farmers usually have an advantage in numbers and technology).

Angela
26-05-15, 20:08
When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.




Where a yDna lineage is common today doesn't tell us where it originated or where it thrived at any particular point in history. Otherwise, everybody in central Europe would be G2a and I2a.

The Fertile Crescent is not just Mesopotamia; it also includes the Levant (which is now Semitic speaking) and parts of Anatolia.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HarranPlains/Images/fertile_crescent_350.jpg

Most researchers seem to believe that the earliest crop farming developed in the foothills of the Zagros mountains, but some also hold that some of the earliest crops might have been domesticated in the Levant, in former Natufian territory. Certainly, the first animal domestication seems to have occurred north and east of Mesopotamia proper.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/11/science/wade_graphic_600.jpg

This University of Chicago map shows one possible sequence of spread.
http://teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/foundations/origins-of-civilization/images/origins-01.jpg

So, the spread into what I think you mean by Mesopotamia might have been a later development.

We do know from recent papers like Paschou et al that some if not all the movement into Europe was from the coastal region at the intersection of the Levant and southwestern Anatolia, where, as I said, they now speak Semitic languages, and these people, who brought their crops and livestock with them, were predominantly G2a.
Paschou et al:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

If G2a was in the Levant, I don't know why it wouldn't have been in Mesopotamia. It is, in fact, present in both areas, although as everywhere, in small numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201

I don't know where J1 and J2 were at the time, but it would seem there weren't that many in the Levant at the time the farmers left for Europe. It used to be held that they also developed in the Zagros Mountains, so perhaps they were northeast of the early core Neolithic areas, and moved there later on.

Fluffy
26-05-15, 20:22
Where a yDna lineage is common today doesn't tell us where it originated or where it thrived at any particular point in history. Otherwise, everybody in central Europe would be G2a and I2a.

The Fertile Crescent is not just Mesopotamia; it also includes the Levant (which is now Semitic speaking) and parts of Anatolia.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HarranPlains/Images/fertile_crescent_350.jpg

Most researchers seem to believe that the earliest crop farming developed in the foothills of the Zagros mountains, but some also hold that some of the earliest crops might have been domesticated in the Levant, in former Natufian territory. Certainly, the first animal domestication seems to have occurred north and east of Mesopotamia proper.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/11/science/wade_graphic_600.jpg

This University of Chicago map shows one possible sequence of spread.
http://teachmiddleeast.lib.uchicago.edu/foundations/origins-of-civilization/images/origins-01.jpg

So, the spread into what I think you mean by Mesopotamia might have been a later development.

We do know from recent papers like Paschou et al that some if not all the movement into Europe was from the coastal region at the intersection of the Levant and southwestern Anatolia, where, as I said, they now speak Semitic languages, and these people, who brought their crops and livestock with them, were predominantly G2a.
Paschou et al:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

If G2a was in the Levant, I don't know why it wouldn't have been in Mesopotamia. It is, in fact, present in both areas, although as everywhere, in small numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201

I don't know where J1 and J2 were at the time, but it would seem there weren't that many in the Levant at the time the farmers left for Europe. It used to be held that they also developed in the Zagros Mountains, so perhaps they were northeast of the early core Neolithic areas, and moved there later on.

If J wasn't there,E would have been. J1 and E (certain subclades) are the typical Semitic Haplogoups not G. Not in big numbers anyway.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 20:36
whereas the HG lifestyle (at least for the men) mostly involves doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping.

The HG lifestyle often involves following animals for days, weeks or months before you catch and kill them.

"Doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping" is not always the case. Try to survive as a hunter-gatherer for several months.


I think it's about having the genetic traits necessary to farm: patience, hard work, looking ahead etc.

"Patience, hard work, looking ahead" are not the stereotypical traits typically ascribed to, say, Medieval peasants.


There was huge effort by white man to culturally change the ways of American Natives, through schools, convents, and forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle. In overwhelming numbers these efforts didn't bring expected results.

You place too much stress on genetics and not enough on cultural factors - such as social disruption and moral depression, as described here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=104

By the way - "forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle" is the main problem here. People always resist forceful indoctrination of any kind. Living in part of Europe where there was not so long ago forceful indoctrination in Communist lifestyle and ideology, I know that people resisted that indoctrination.

Sile
26-05-15, 20:41
When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.



Hidatsa and Pawnee tribes were first farmers, then switched to being horse-riding nomads.


The levant original markers where in majority E and J1 .............we know that R1-v88 enter the are late with T and L and then proceeded to Egypt.
We have little G2 in the levant

There does seem to be a big mixture of many haplogroups around modern Kurdish lands and modern south Armenian lands ..............maybe this was a staging place for migration

Angela
26-05-15, 20:50
If J wasn't there,E would have been. J1 and E (certain subclades) are the typical Semitic Haplogoups not G. Not in big numbers anyway.

If recent research is correct as to the first farmers' departure point for Europe, G2a was in the Levant at that time. Perhaps other yDna lineages were also present, but if they were they don't seem to have chosen to emigrate in the same numbers.

What is present in the Levant today in terms of yDna is not dispositive. I think we've learned that frequencies of yDna lineages can fluctuate greatly over time. If they didn't, Central Europe would, as I said, be all G2a and I2a.

The origin point is different from the area of spread, which can be different from modern areas of highest frequencies.

Angela
26-05-15, 20:52
The levant original markers where in majority E and J1 .............we know that R1-v88 enter the are late with T and L and then proceeded to Egypt.
We have little G2 in the levant

There does seem to be a big mixture of many haplogroups around modern Kurdish lands and modern south Armenian lands ..............maybe this was a staging place for migration

See post #55

Angela
26-05-15, 20:55
I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

Hunter-gatherers can be forced to farm, as slave labor perhaps, but studies of them throughout the world have shown that as groups they historically prefer to retreat and maintain their lifestyle. The Amazon Indian tribes are a good example.

I think what has happened historically with the San is a good example of the progression. As farming groups invaded their territory, the San retreated, their numbers shrinking along with their foraging territory. On the margins, some admixed individuals formed their own communities and acted as intermediaries with the farmers. Some of those people then admixed into the farmer groups.

I think that's what happened in most of Europe. As I've said before, you just have to look at what happened in Hungary. The first I2a sample is pure hunter-gatherer autosomally. Fast forward, and you have Ne7, who is also I2a, but who is autosomally "Neolithic farmer". How did it happen? One hunter-gatherer male was absorbed by the newcomers. Perhaps he was a slave, but his descendents freed themselves. Regardless, his line thrived with his adoption of agriculture.

What we don't see, however, is Neolithic farming communities full of people who are autosomally "hunter-gatherer" and yDna I2a. In other words, we don't have whole groups of hunter gatherers becoming farmers through cultural transmission. It always seems to have occurred through admixture genetically.

Now, whether that's down to the fact that hunter-gatherers don't have certain traits which natural selection increased in people who had been farmers for millennia, or whether it's a function of the fact that it's difficult for anyone to so drastically change lifestyle I don't know, but that seems to be the pattern.

As I said, though, I think history shows that they can be forced to farm with fair results. That's what Catholic priests did in Missions in Latin America, for example.

If you haven't seen "The Mission", I recommend it. :)

Tomenable
26-05-15, 21:03
but studies of them throughout the world have shown that as groups they historically prefer to retreat and maintain their lifestyle.

Please check some medical studies on health of hunters compared to health of early farmers - both modern and archaeological populations. Generally, hunters tend to be healthier and better nourished than primitive farmers. The advantage of farmers is that they can feed much more people, but each individual farmer has a less diverse diet (and less diverse means they will be undernourished or at least lack some nutrients in their food).

Switching from hunting and gathering to farming has also cons, not just pros. And nomadic lifestyle has its charms.

Farming lifestyle also has its hardships, and for some people it may be less charming to sit in one place all the time instead of roaming around.

This has not much to do with genetics but more with cultural factors.

The only (partially) genetic factor that could made adoption of farming impossible that I can think of, is intelligence. Low intelligence, to be precise. But there are farmer populations with low IQ, and there are hunter populations with high IQ as well (for example the Eskimos).


If you haven't seen "The Mission", I recommend it. :)

I have seen it, thank you - a really great movie. :)

arvistro
26-05-15, 21:03
Ok, with time they can become farmers. After all those were hunters and gatherers who started farming, right?
Like herding is next step of hunting, farming is next step of gathering.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 21:09
What we don't see, however, is Neolithic farming communities full of people who are autosomally "hunter-gatherer" and yDna I2a. In other words, we don't have whole groups of hunter gatherers becoming farmers through cultural transmission. It always seems to have occurred through admixture genetically.

We generally don't have any Neolithic farming communities with mostly I2. Data collected so far shows that they were mostly G2a and I2 were in minority. Unless you mean some sites with very small samples size, like e.g. 2 samples. I don't think we can draw conclusions from 2 samples.


I think what has happened historically with the San is a good example of the progression. As farming groups invaded their territory, the San retreated, their numbers shrinking along with their foraging territory. On the margins, some admixed individuals formed their own communities and acted as intermediaries with the farmers. Some of those people then admixed into the farmer groups.

It had less to do with the San's rejection of new lifestyle, and more to do with aggressive attitude of the invading Bantu farmers.

The Bantu were not open to accept the San into their communities. The Bantu even believed that eating the San makes them stronger...

The San (and also the Pygmies) were considered to be "magical people", whose flesh - when cooked and eaten - heals diseases.

But if farmers are more peaceful, then instead of exterminating hunter populations, they might be willing to teach them how to farm.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 21:24
What we don't see, however, is Neolithic farming communities full of people who are autosomally "hunter-gatherer" and yDna I2a. In other words, we don't have whole groups of hunter gatherers becoming farmers through cultural transmission. It always seems to have occurred through admixture genetically.

I think you have just fallen into the trap of chronology here.

Why do we assume that those people became farmers through genetic admixture, and not the other way around?

Maybe they first became members of farming communities, and then intermarried with farmers - acquiring the admixture in question. In order to definitely prove it, we would need to find samples of people who died immediately after transition from hunting to farming ("first and second-generation" farmers, whose great-grandparents were still hunters). It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, but maybe it will happen one day. :)

For example, Dienekes has published on his blog, that recently a fourth-generation mixed-race Human-Neanderthal has been found. His great-grandpa or great-granny was a Neanderthal. This is the first such finding so far. The 45,000 years old Siberian found previously, was only 2,3% Neanderthal, and his Neanderthal admixture dated to 55,000 years ago - so some 10,000 years before his birth. And now we have a 1/8 Neanderthal.

What we need is a similar case of a farmer with very recent hunter ancestors.

BTW - farmers are more densely packed in space than hunters. A hunter needs ca. 10 km2 to feed his family, while a farmer needs - at the most - 0,5 km2. When farmers migrated, and they entered some area, they were immediately more numerous in that area than local hunters.

Hunters could only remain the majority in such areas which were unsuitable for farming, or where farmers didn't settle for other reasons.

Mesolithic genes must have survived in greater amounts in remote and isolated areas, while most fertile areas became heavily Neolithic-infested. The spread of farming to regions with most fertile soils was probably overwhelmingly through immigration from Asia Minor. But the spread of farming to remote areas, could be more through cultural transition (local hunters switching to farming), and less through population movement.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 21:50
I'm used to Maciamo's colour scheme. Perhaps we can use some standardization in this field? Just suggestions.

Can you give a link to Maciamo's colour scheme ???

epoch
26-05-15, 22:21
There was a time aboriginals thrived after the coming of the white man. It was when aboriginals were hired for cattle stations, to track lost herds and animals or as stockmen. They required no pay but simply that their group was well fed. So cattle station owners basically provided the livelihood of the group. These aboriginal rangers were considered highly in the groups, as they knew the lands well and that knowledge brought abundance. That status was actually almost similar to hunter status.

Back then numbers of aboriginals actually grew. It was forbidden by law to provide aboriginals alcohol, which was instrumental in this. After a while a law required wages to be paid, bit these were saved in trust funds, often used as welfare provision.

Back in the sixties these measures of restricted access to their own money and no provision of alcohol were considered outrageously racist and were repelled. The result was disastrous: strikes started and the upheaval ended with a lot of aboriginal stockmen losing their jobs. Alcoholism became a problem.


Despite the dislocation associated with this major change, and the often exploitatitive nature of their employment, many older Aboriginal people look back with pride on their work in the cattle industry and sadness at the loss of much of this sort of work.

http://www.aboriginalartonline.com/culture/pastoral.php

I think this story makes very clear that HG's will feel well with cattle herding. From Saami and Yakuts that maintain and follow a semi-wild herd of reindeer to cattle herders may be not such a large step.

Tomenable
26-05-15, 23:15
BTW - there was probably some kind of a "Black Death" plague in Neolithic Europe - check this article:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

http://s30.postimg.org/4ncr0logx/Neolithic_demographics.png

That population collapse was few centuries before the spread of PIE cultures, so it wasn't caused by them.

It is possible that the percent of people with G2a in the total population declined during that plague.

Angela
26-05-15, 23:20
We generally don't have any Neolithic farming communities with mostly I2. Data collected so far shows that they were mostly G2a and I2 were in minority. Unless you mean some sites with very small samples size, like e.g. 2 samples. I don't think we can draw conclusions from 2 samples.


Tomenable, where did I say that there were any Neolithic farming communities with mostly I2? I said just the opposite. It was precisely my point that there are no all or mostly yDna I2a/ hunter gatherer autosomally farming communities, or at least none we've found so far. So, there was no whole sale adoption of farming by hunter-gatherer groups though cultural diffusion in the European Neolithic as used to be claimed. It seems that it only happened in more isolated situations where some individual men and women were incorporated into the community and their lines then thrived.


I think you have just fallen into the trap of chronology here.

Why do we assume that those people became farmers through genetic admixture, and not the other way around?

Maybe they first became absorbed into farming communities, and then intermarried with farmers - acquiring the admixture in question. In order to definitely prove it, we would need to find samples of people who died immediately after transition from hunting to farming ("first and second-generation" farmers, whose great-grandparents were still hunters). It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, but maybe it will happen one day. :)

I don't think I'm assuming anything. The example I gave is of an I2a 100% hunter-gatherer autosomally who was found in a Neolithic context. Maybe he just wandered in because he liked the idea of staying in one place and learning farming and was accepted. Maybe he was a slave. Maybe he fell for a farmer girl and decided to give it a try.:) I don't know.

In some situations, in the Balkans, there is evidence that Neolithic women went to live in hunter-gatherer communities. A few generations later there were no more hunter-gatherer camps. Maybe the admixed people were absorbed by the farming communities when the bulk of the "pure" hunter-gatherers fled.

There were probably also some unwanted matings as well, but in those cases the absorption by the farmers would mostly have been of hunter-gatherer mtDna.



It had less to do with the San's rejection of new lifestyle, and more to do with aggressive attitude of the invading Bantu farmers.

The Bantu were not open to accept the San into their communities. The Bantu even believed that eating the San makes them stronger...

The San (and also the Pygmies) were considered to be "magical people", whose flesh - when cooked and eaten - heals diseases.

But if farmers are more peaceful, then instead of exterminating hunter populations, they might be willing to teach them how to farm.

Encounters between hunter-gatherers and farmers seem to follow a mostly predictable pattern. When the farmers first arrive and it seems there might be enough resources for everyone, things are relatively tranquil. When the numbers of the farmers grows exponentially because of more migrations and more so because of the numbers that farming can support, the encounters turn violent. The hunter/gatherers want to expel the farmers and use whatever weapons they have at their disposal. The farmers want to expel the remaining hunter gatherers and use whatever weapons they have at their disposal. Larger numbers and sometimes better technology means that the hunters lose. They either flee to ever more marginal land or they remain as hangers on dependent on handouts from the farmers. It's not a pretty picture, but it's reality.

What we don't see is a sort of "If we can't beat them, we'll join them" attitude. Part of the reason may be that it was just too unfamiliar a lifestyle. Part of it may be that the hunters resented their treatment by the farmers. Part of it, in later times when governments attempted to send these people to school to learn farming, or even gave them seeds, and tools and animals to try to convert them to farming, may be that people don't like to be forced. However, I don't know why you find it so hard to credit that some of it might be the fact that they don't possess certain adaptive traits that accumulated in people who had been farming for millennia. If nothing else, look at the problems that all "aboriginal" peoples seem to have with alcohol even after hundreds of years.

It doesn't make them "inferior", you know...just adapted to a different lifestyle. I think there's pretty good evidence that Australian aborigines have certain traits that indeed Europeans don't possess.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:02
Farming was "invented" just in a few hotspots scattered throughout the world. It later spread not only through migrations of farmers, but also through cultural exchange. Just like gunpowder reached Europe not because Chinese people with gunpowder colonized Europe, but because the Mongols got it from the Chinese, the Muslims got it from the Mongols, and the Crusaders got it from the Muslims.

The example of farmer-hunter interaction patterns that you give, is from the 20th century - right ???

Human interactions are complex and different in each instance. They cannot be reduced to a simple repetitive pattern.


There were probably also some unwanted matings as well

And not just unwanted for sure.

Both exchanging females between 'tribes' and kidnapping females from other 'tribes' are practices dating back to prehistory.

Also 'expelling' excess males to other tribes is an ancient practice. Depending on mating patterns in local cultures, either 'excess' males or females leave a tribe and move to another tribe. The necessity of mixing 'blood' to avoid too much inbreeding was understood.

And I see no reason why farmers would exchange 'blood' only with other farmers and not with neighbouring hunters.

There are also many opportunities for cooperation between hunters and farmers - we could see that in the Americas.

HGs would trade animal-derived and 'gathered' products to farmers, in exchange for pottery, other items and food.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:18
An example of good relations between nomads/hunters and farmers is that between the Comanche and the Wichita in the 1700s.

The Wichitas were sedentary farmers, while the Comanches were nomadic hunters. They were allies and traded extensively.

The Comanches provided the Wichitas with horses, buffalo hides, meat and slaves (enslaved Apaches and Pawnees).

In exchange, the Wichitas provided the Comanches with firearms, metal products, cloth, corn and vegetables.

That symbiosis lasted over 140 years and ended only when the Comanches were defeated by the U.S. Army in the 1840s.


In some situations, in the Balkans, there is evidence that Neolithic women went to live in hunter-gatherer communities.

Maybe hunters 'hunted' for those women (see what I wrote about kidnapping women). Or they peacefully exchanged brides.

The problem (for hunters) is that hunters will always be - in a particular area, for example a valley - less numerous than farmers.

So if 2000 farmers meet 200 hunters and they exchange 10 brides each, a stronger genetic footprint will be on hunters.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 00:18
I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car. Yes you can teach and with enough effort they will learn. Then they work for few months and they will quit. They will go back to the stuff that makes them happy, like roaming around and hunting. Going against one's nature is hard.
Otherwise you have to get slaves and force them to work hard. Well, with enough "encouragement" you can make a gay to marry a woman. When people are given a free will and free choice they will go with their nature. HGs they would rather go roaming and hunting than sowing and milking. I'm not saying that sowing and milking are fun activities, (probably not enough time for evolution to get there), but I don't mind doing this if I know it will bring me good living and future for my many kids. Plus I have strong sense of duty. Probably also heightened by farming past of my ancestors.


And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't. Evolve in 100 years to drive a car? Give it 10,000 years of evolution of humans in cars and you will see that they will become much better drivers. Poor or reckless drivers will die young without offspring. Good drivers will survive, giving their "good driving" genes to new generation.
Heck, read this to learn about problems Natives have to adapt to Western civilization. Learning to drive a car is not easy for them either.
http://www.ictinc.ca/7-basic-solutions-barriers-to-aboriginal-employment
I'm not saying I'm a better man than HGs. I fit better farming culture and Western Civilization which was build by farmer communities.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 00:20
I don't think it's about learning to farm I think it's about having the genetic traits necessary to farm: patience, hard work, looking ahead etc, whereas the HG lifestyle (at least for the men) mostly involves doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping.

#

The farming = human domestication argument actually supports your case: farmers are domesticated humans, HGs are wild humans, herders are in between.

So in a single fight HG > farmer (except usually it's not a single fight and the farmers usually have an advantage in numbers and technology).
Good angle.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:39
Western Civilization which was build by farmer communities.

I think you missed the whole "Urbanization and Industrial Revolution" thingy...

And early Proto-Indo-Europeans were mostly nomadic herders.


Yes you can teach and with enough effort they will learn. Then they work for few months and they will quit. They will go back to the stuff that makes them happy, like roaming around and hunting. Going against one's nature is hard.

Compare modern urbanization rates in Europe with urbanization rates in year 1400, 1600, 1700 or even 1800.

If going against one's nature is hard then why did all those farmers move to cities during the last few centuries?

I'm starting to think that you must be a farmer who loves his job and is pursuing his farmer agenda. :laughing: ;)

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:45
Give it 10,000 years of evolution of humans in cars and you will see that they will become much better drivers.

But you have argued that people cannot even become "average" drivers without interbreeding with drivers first! So to get a driving licence, women must have sex with their driving instructors first! This even makes more sense than I initially thought... :laughing: :rolleyes2:

LeBrok
27-05-15, 00:51
"Patience, hard work, looking ahead" are not the stereotypical traits typically ascribed to, say, Medieval peasants. You can add a daily grind. Chinese farmers are even better in this.




You place too much stress on genetics and not enough on cultural factors - such as social disruption and moral depression, as described here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=104

By the way - "forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle" is the main problem here. People always resist forceful indoctrination of any kind. Sure. But we don't see the tribes who embraced farming by their own will. Come here for a trip and meet natives. You will understand what I'm talking about when I talk about strong genetic predispositions.


Living in part of Europe where there was not so long ago forceful indoctrination in Communist lifestyle and ideology, I know that people resisted that indoctrination. Communism didn't work for any country yet, at least as good as capitalism. If we had one country that thrived in communism you would have a good case that it was just cultural and defensive behavior in countries that didn't work. Whatever it was in Poland it didn't agree with my nature, and I left. Sense of "taste".

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:52
Well, with enough "encouragement" you can make a gay to marry a woman.

Why haven't gays get extinct already ??? After all, they do not pass their gay genes to next generations.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 00:55
I don't mind doing this if I know it will bring me good living and future for my many kids. Plus I have strong sense of duty.

So you are a farmer! I guessed it right. A farming-agenda spreading farmer. ;)

You will be surprised one day when your child will tell you: "Dad, I have evolved urban genes - I'm moving to a city."

Tomenable
27-05-15, 01:01
Sure. But we don't see the tribes who embraced farming by their own will.

Probably if you dig in written records enough, you will find some.

And then you have long centuries for which no written records exist.

Or are you writing about Native tribes in Canada now ???

LeBrok
27-05-15, 01:05
Ok, with time they can become farmers. After all those were hunters and gatherers who started farming, right?
Like herding is next step of hunting, farming is next step of gathering. Exactly. It took thousands of years and many generation to become a farmer and herder. On example of Yamnaya R1b we know that they didn't become herders of farmers through cultural assimilation. They became genetically farmers first (Armenian like) and only then they embraced herding and farming, build up in numbers and started expression. This and many other examples point to role of genetic predispositions in becoming a farmer. Thousands of years of evolution.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 01:08
Australian aborigines have certain traits that indeed Europeans don't possess.

It is argued that Australian Aborigines did not adopt farming, because there were no plants suitable to domesticate in Australia. This seems valid, given that Europeans have not domesticated any Australian plants so far, but brought their own plants to Australia.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 01:08
Why haven't gays get extinct already ??? After all, they do not pass their gay genes to next generations. Arranged marriages, peer/family/religious pressure. Enough to make you do whatever community wants, or you will die.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 01:12
So you are a farmer! I guessed it right. A farming-agenda spreading farmer. ;) I really felt your HG agenda in you. From building log houses to farming. ;)


You will be surprised one day when your child will tell you: "Dad, I have evolved urban genes - I'm moving to a city." Again, modern cities exist only for 100 years. Before that 90% of people lived in villages. Give them time to develop genetic "city" predispositions. Ask me again in 10,000 years.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 01:15
But those peasants DID move to cities and became urban folks. So hunters COULD move to fields and become farmers. I did not claim that they were perfect farmers, like I do not claim that all urban folks can jump from skyscraper to skyscraper like Spiderman. :)


Exactly. It took thousands of years and many generation to become a farmer and herder. On example of Yamnaya R1b we know that they didn't become herders of farmers through cultural assimilation. They became genetically farmers first (Armenian like) and only then they embraced herding and farming, build up in numbers and started expression. This and many other examples point to role of genetic predispositions in becoming a farmer. Thousands of years of evolution.

But Near Eastern admixture in Yamnaya samples was only about 20-25%. And also we don't really know the chronological order.

They could at first learn herding-farming from herders-farmers, and only then mix with them liberally, getting to those 20%.


I really felt your HG agenda in you.

Indeed I sometimes feel a strange pressure to go out and roam over some wide area... :)

LeBrok
27-05-15, 01:19
Probably if you dig in written records enough, you will find some. I love this stuff, and disyphering human nature, my eyes and years are open. I'm yet to find this tribe. I don't perceiving that one human is better than the other. I just want to figure out why some fit better our western civilizations, like Japanese or Chinese, but some don't like HGs. My quest brings me to genetics.


And then you have long centuries for which no written records exist.There is also archaeology and autosomal DNA. It is amazing what we learned about the past in last decade.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 01:24
It is amazing what we learned about the past in last decade.

I think we are still learning. Number of ancient DNA samples has been hopelessly small so far.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 01:33
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliyan


In the early part of the 20th century the Paliyans dressed scantily and lived in rock crevices and caves. Most have now have transformed to traders of forest products, food cultivators and beekeepers. Some work intermittently as wage laborers, mostly on plantations.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomads_of_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_tribes_in_India

Angela
27-05-15, 01:50
http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Tomenable http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=457858#post457858)
Why haven't gays get extinct already ??? After all, they do not pass their gay genes to next generations.
\


Arranged marriages, peer/family/religious pressure. Enough to make you do whatever community wants, or you will die.

Plus, the genetic predisposition may be passed through the female line.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 01:50
But those peasants DID move to cities and became urban folks. So hunters COULD move to fields and become farmers. I did not claim that they were perfect farmers, like I do not claim that all urban folks can jump from skyscrapes to skyscraper like Spiderman. :) Cities were only created by farmers, and obviously the way farmers could and were able to do. There are no cities created by HGs, whatever this could mean.



But Near Eastern admixture in Yamnaya samples was only about 20-25%. And also we don't really know the chronological order.

They could at first learn herding-farming from herders-farmers, and only then mix with them liberally, getting to those 20%. Please find farming community with pure HG autosomal, either ancient or modern times.

Angela
27-05-15, 01:56
Tomenable;457845]Farming was "invented" just in a few hotspots scattered throughout the world. It later spread not only through migrations of farmers, but also through cultural exchange. Just like gunpowder reached Europe not because Chinese people with gunpowder colonized Europe, but because the Mongols got it from the Chinese, the Muslims got it from the Mongols, and the Crusaders got it from the Muslims.

The example of farmer-hunter interaction patterns that you give, is from the 20th century - right?

Human interactions are complex and different in each instance. They cannot be reduced to a simple repetitive pattern

No, not always, but in this case the genetics proves that the ancient pattern was the same as the modern one.

For the past hundred years many archaeologists held that agriculture spread in Europe because hunter gatherers adopted farming mainly through cultural diffusion, like adopting the use of gunpowder, as you say, and there was basically population continuity, but ancient dna proves that this wasn't the case. Farming was not spread by cultural diffusion. It was spread by people.

As I said above, the people in the European Neolithic communities were totally different autosomally from the hunter-gatherers who had previously lived in those areas. Even the Neolithic men and women who carried hunter gatherer uniparental markers were autosomally Near Eastern farmers. A few hunter-gatherers were absorbed, and the rest died or fled to marginal land or lived in isolated communities. They didn't adopt farming. If they had we would be finding farming communities of autosomally Loschbour like people.

The ancient pattern is the same as the modern pattern. [/QUOTE]


And not just unwanted for sure.

Both exchanging females between 'tribes' and kidnapping females from other 'tribes' are practices dating back to prehistory.

Also 'expelling' excess males to other tribes is an ancient practice. Depending on mating patterns in local cultures, either 'excess' males or females leave a tribe and move to another tribe. The necessity of mixing 'blood' to avoid too much inbreeding was understood.

And I see no reason why farmers would exchange 'blood' only with other farmers and not with neighbouring hunters.

There are also many opportunities for cooperation between hunters and farmers - we could see that in the Americas.

HGs would trade animal-derived and 'gathered' products to farmers, in exchange for pottery, other items and food.

Yes, I know HGs would trade. The Amerindians would trade furs and sometimes food with the settlers for cloth and beads and metal tools and weapons. They still eventually got shunted on to marginal land, on the so called "reservations", or they lived as hangers on around European settlements. As to bride exchange, European settlers were certainly not eager to send their daughters to live in Indian camps, and even taking Indian women was only acceptable in the initial settlement periods when the settlers were often mostly men. Once the numbers started to really grow and women arrived, a type of apartheid started to be imposed. You see the same situation in places like South Africa as well as Latin America. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they were mostly men. They took native women. Some of those children admixed with each other, forming the Coloured community. Some of them admixed into the thousands of Dutch settlers who started arriving. That's why you have "white" Afrikaners who find to their surprise that they carry an "African" mtDna or more rarely yDna, or a few percent of SSA autosomally. Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

None of us can know exactly what happened in pre-historic Europe, but we have the evidence of these kinds of interactions throughout history, and now we have ancient Dna, and they agree. Was there some incorporation of hunter gatherer dna? Yes, there was. I think it probably took place upon the initial encounter, but there's nothing to indicate that it was extensive and ongoing. Regardless, if there were a lot of hunter-gatherers around who adopted farming on their own there should be some sign of it in the form of communities of Loschbour like people who took up farming, and we haven't found it yet.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 02:04
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliyan



Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomads_of_India

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_tribes_in_India

Looks like the were forced out of the forces and do everything to just survive.

Heading needed[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paliyan&action=edit&section=5)]The Paliyan are not very willing agents of all this destruction; but with their traditional hunting - gathering economy no longer a practical proposition, they are dependent on forest produce collection for a living. As such, they have been directly responsible for the destruction of many species, including the cinnamon through bark collection. But now with only a small population of cinnamon trees surviving deep in the core of the forest, the Paliyan have informed the contractor that 'the cinnamon has been exhausted, and leave these trees alone'[citation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)

They only know how to gather the cinnamon, but don't know how to cultivate it, the way farmers do. Their men are not allowed to hunt in the forest anymore.

Angela
27-05-15, 02:10
But those peasants DID move to cities and became urban folks. So hunters COULD move to fields and become farmers. I did not claim that they were perfect farmers, like I do not claim that all urban folks can jump from skyscraper to skyscraper like Spiderman. :)



But Near Eastern admixture in Yamnaya samples was only about 20-25%. And also we don't really know the chronological order.

They could at first learn herding-farming from herders-farmers, and only then mix with them liberally, getting to those 20%.



Indeed I sometimes feel a strange pressure to go out and roam over some wide area... :)

Haak et al modeling shows the Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% ancient Karelian like/50% Armenian like. Or, use Iraqi Jews for the Near Eastern component. I think that was even better. Still, 25% might be enough anyway.

I wonder why it is that I've never met a woman who wants to return to the good old days of living in a cave or hide shelter, eating half charred, half raw meat, walking for miles to get some berries and leaves, and having to pull up stakes at least every season to go to a new camp, all while either nauseously or heavily pregnant and/or with a baby at the breast and a few toddlers straggling behind. Gosh, we didn't know when we had it so good!

By the way, I have been enjoying the humor, gentlemen. :)

LeBrok
27-05-15, 02:12
Not necessarily, there are many possible models leading to this scenario. For example such a simple model:

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png

http://s2.postimg.org/vjgr8gpux/PIE_model.png

I had time to have closer look at your model. I have to admit that it presents a viable scenario. Probably more like the IE invaders could impose on locals. IE invaders were numerous warriors on horses.

Now we need to explain Neolithic Hungarian one. Where numerous G2a farmers pushed away few hunter gatherers, but yet lost their paternal chromosome to HGs.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 02:15
There are no cities created by HGs, whatever this could mean.

There is at least one - it also happens to be the oldest city discovered so far, older than Jericho:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Qaramel

"(...) Before the excavations began, it was assumed that permanent sedentary settlements would occur only in combination with the first farming of cereals, and the first domestication and keeping of animals such as sheep and goats, marking the start of the Neolithic period, part of a transition between the proto-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A cultures. However the remains of the structures uncovered at Tell Qaramel appear to be older than this, giving the first evidence of permanent stone-built settlement without signs of animal domestication or organised farming.[3][4] Particularly striking are the remains of a succession of five round, stone-built towers, each over 6 metres in diameter, with stone walls over 1.5m thick. These have been carbon-dated to between the eleventh millennium and 9650 BC. This dating makes the towers roughly two thousand years older than the stone tower found at Jericho, which was previously believed to be the oldest known tower structure in the world.[1] (...)"

That was probably possible due to exceptional abundance of wild plants and high density of wild animal population in the area.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 02:30
It is argued that Australian Aborigines did not adopt farming, because there were no plants suitable to domesticate in Australia. This seems valid, given that Europeans have not domesticated any Australian plants so far, but brought their own plants to Australia.
Yep, do what fauna and flora gives you. Farming first happened in very suitable to farming places. Fertile crescent was always covered by fields of wheat. SE Asia covered in rice, and Meso America in corn. HGs in these places were harvesting these ubiquitous starches for thousands of years, till they "crossed the threshold" and started cultivating it, be in control. In my mind this "threshold" is right set of genetic predispositions. It is not a cultural or logical Eureka moment, but genetic readiness.

Going back to Aborigines. Why didn't they domesticated Kangaroos, or whatever else was delicious to eat there? Sometimes I wonder if there was ever domestication of animals without becoming a farmer first, more precisely, without getting farmer's genes first?

LeBrok
27-05-15, 02:40
There is at least one - it also happens to be the oldest city discovered so far, older than Jericho:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Qaramel

"(...) Before the excavations began, it was assumed that permanent sedentary settlements would occur only in combination with the first farming of cereals, and the first domestication and keeping of animals such as sheep and goats, marking the start of the Neolithic period, part of a transition between the proto-Neolithic and Pre-Pottery Neolithic A cultures. However the remains of the structures uncovered at Tell Qaramel appear to be older than this, giving the first evidence of permanent stone-built settlement without signs of animal domestication or organised farming.[3][4] Particularly striking are the remains of a succession of five round, stone-built towers, each over 6 metres in diameter, with stone walls over 1.5m thick. These have been carbon-dated to between the eleventh millennium and 9650 BC. This dating makes the towers roughly two thousand years older than the stone tower found at Jericho, which was previously believed to be the oldest known tower structure in the world.[1] (...)"

That was probably possible due to exceptional abundance of wild plants and high density of wild animal population in the area.
Doesn't 9650 BC fall at the beginning of farming in Near East? It is exactly when Younger Dryas ends.
Natufians, who lived in the area, were harvesting grains (perhaps not planting it yet) in big quantities at least 5 thousand years before that date. I had the latest article about them somewhere bookmarked, and I lost it. It was amazing how much variety and quantity of grains archeologists found in their huts.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 03:13
The HG lifestyle often involves following animals for days, weeks or months before you catch and kill them.

"Doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping" is not always the case. Try to survive as a hunter-gatherer for several months.


Hunting is fun.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 03:26
Ok, with time they can become farmers. After all those were hunters and gatherers who started farming, right?
Like herding is next step of hunting, farming is next step of gathering.

That to me is the interesting point. Given how historically HGs have resisted becoming farmers how could the transition occur naturally? I think it would have required a particularly good *static* food source which acted as an anchor making the local HGs semi-sedentary around that static food source.

(There's a cool documentary of two troops of monkeys fighting over a fig tree in Sri Lanka which i think symbolizes the idea.)

One candidate for that kind of food source might be fruit trees: figs, dates, apples, pears etc and those fruit trees start the process of domesticating humans.

Jericho is the sort of site I mean where there was apparently a permanent pre-farming settlement and lots of palm trees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho

edit: I read back from the beginning so missed people making the same point.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 03:40
I had time to have closer look at your model. I have to admit that it presents a viable scenario. Probably more like the IE invaders could impose on locals. IE invaders were numerous warriors on horses.

Now we need to explain Neolithic Hungarian one. Where numerous G2a farmers pushed away few hunter gatherers, but yet lost their paternal chromosome to HGs.

I think it was just horses. The steppe HGs had horses and the HGs in other places didn't.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 03:48
Hunting is fun.

Here is interesting documentary about one of Brazilian Jungle H-G tribe. Women are farmers, planting and harvesting tapioca, which provide most of tribal food, while men are still hunting, running, chanting, doing drugs and sleeping. Fun, fun, fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ4Obl-XbtI

Looks like they are in transitional phase. Women, the gatherers, were the first one who became farmers, while men were still hunting. Give them couple of thousand of years and men should "understand" value of farming.
Interestingly, they have pet animals, but no idea of herding.
Perhaps scenario goes like this, when women became farmers, men was still hunting for a while. Then men became farmers and didn't have time for long hunts. There was still need for meat proteins, so need for domestication of animals occurred. Men started herding around villages and fields, not to go away for long hunts, and away from farming crops. Herding was a necessity. After few thousands of years the roles blended and men and women farmed and herded together.
In the process, the right mutations were selected, to become better farmers and herders.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 04:24
Can you give a link to Maciamo's colour scheme ???
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/maps_Y-DNA_haplogroups.shtml
He uses the same for all his maps and updates. The colours are well defined and contrasting for not very good eyes like mine, and probably few other folks.
Thanks for listening. :)

LeBrok
27-05-15, 04:36
BTW - there was probably some kind of a "Black Death" plague in Neolithic Europe - check this article:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/full/ncomms3486.html

http://s30.postimg.org/4ncr0logx/Neolithic_demographics.png

That population collapse was few centuries before the spread of PIE cultures, so it wasn't caused by them.

It is possible that the percent of people with G2a in the total population declined during that plague.
You can see that every thousand of years there was a decline, for some reason. At 6000 BP, there were first signs of invasion from the Steppe. David Anthony mentioned that invaders rode horses, but before attacking a village, the disembark and attacked on foot. More than 1,000 years later when IE came they knew how to attack on horses.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 04:47
But you have argued that people cannot even become "average" drivers without interbreeding with drivers first! So to get a driving licence, women must have sex with their driving instructors first! This even makes more sense than I initially thought... :laughing: :rolleyes2:
Nope, driving was your unfortunate idea. I was talking about farming which has at least 10,000 years of evolution.
I never argued that there is no cultural aspect and that you can't teach H-G farming. You can, but he won't do it. He will suffer all day being a farmer, and he will go back to what he likes the most: roaming, hunting and fighting. That's his nature.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 05:05
Please check some medical studies on health of hunters compared to health of early farmers - both modern and archaeological populations. Generally, hunters tend to be healthier and better nourished than primitive farmers. The advantage of farmers is that they can feed much more people, but each individual farmer has a less diverse diet (and less diverse means they will be undernourished or at least lack some nutrients in their food).

Changing environment always come with trade-offs. In our modern world we suffer obesity, debilities, bad teeth, back problems, etc. In spite of these health problems farming was more advantageous for them and their offspring. By natural standards, what counts is not the happiness of individual, but survival his/her offspring, or amount of genetic material transferred.
I remember reading an article about 3,000 year old mummies found in coastal Peru. Their main diet was variety of sea food. Average life span of these HGs was 30 years, and all of them had 5 types of worms. Brain worm, hook warm, tape worm, you name it. They were eaten alive.
Not only farmers suffered change of diet, but also many HGs when they moved to new environment, continent or started eating sea food.

Here is another Amazon tribe, the Suruwaha. They practice infanticide of sick kids to have " a perfect and healthy" population. They also commit suicide around age 35, to join their families in heaven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zosGI06sICY
I don't like this dramatizing host, but it is a great window on life of HGs.

Arame
27-05-15, 06:52
The lack of J2 in aDNA is interesting.
J2 could be related to West Asian component (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26799-Autosomal-map-West-Asian-admixture-%28from-Dodecad%29).
The recent calculations of TMRCA of J2 in West Asia shows that his age is 10.000 so his lack in Old Europe is quite intriguing.
Maybe we must wait some Italian and Greek aDNA.
So to what historic event can be related the West Asian component?

bicicleur
27-05-15, 08:38
By contrast, societies of Neolithic farmers were less patriarchal (some of them were even matriarchal) and also more egalitarian:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6IgYxfTYTg



Nope. Those societies weren't patriarchal. They were often matriarchal, so groups of women were in position of power over others. Those Neolithic societies also tended to be quite egalitarian, which was reflected for example by their collective burials in mass graves. Neolithic cultures didn't have such a social ladder like that of PIEs, who buried their prominent individuals with rich grave goods, in large kurgans.

if these societies were so egalitarian, why was over 90% of all gold found in just 3-4 graves of the Varna cemetery ?

bicicleur
27-05-15, 08:56
Yes, I know HGs would trade. The Amerindians would trade furs and sometimes food with the settlers for cloth and beads and metal tools and weapons. They still eventually got shunted on to marginal land, on the so called "reservations", or they lived as hangers on around European settlements. As to bride exchange, European settlers were certainly not eager to send their daughters to live in Indian camps, and even taking Indian women was only acceptable in the initial settlement periods when the settlers were often mostly men. Once the numbers started to really grow and women arrived, a type of apartheid started to be imposed. You see the same situation in places like South Africa as well as Latin America. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they were mostly men. They took native women. Some of those children admixed with each other, forming the Coloured community. Some of them admixed into the thousands of Dutch settlers who started arriving. That's why you have "white" Afrikaners who find to their surprise that they carry an "African" mtDna or more rarely yDna, or a few percent of SSA autosomally. Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

None of us can know exactly what happened in pre-historic Europe, but we have the evidence of these kinds of interactions throughout history, and now we have ancient Dna, and they agree. Was there some incorporation of hunter gatherer dna? Yes, there was. I think it probably took place upon the initial encounter, but there's nothing to indicate that it was extensive and ongoing. Regardless, if there were a lot of hunter-gatherers around who adopted farming on their own there should be some sign of it in the form of communities of Loschbour like people who took up farming, and we haven't found it yet.[/QUOTE]

another example comes to my mind : the Bantoe expansion (E1b1a) in Africa, starting from Cameroon some 3000 years ago into subsaharan Africa
they organised a system of apartheid where they ruled over the aboriginees (haplo A & B)
the system is still intact
I saw a program on TV, it was deep in the Congo jungle, a place only possible to reach by riverboat
the Bantoes live in a village near the river and they rule over the 'autochtones' who roam the jungle and come to the village from time to time
the 'autochtones' are not entitled to any education whatsoever, the Bantoes have the monopoly over trade and the 'autochtones' get instructions all the time from the Bantoes what they should do, even when they are roaming the jungle

colonisation is not just something of the last few centuries

Tomenable
27-05-15, 13:35
Bicicleur,

Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison - check "Appendix B" in the link):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e6ChgL1EC4

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

http://s27.postimg.org/lg4bdy7dv/SA_Blacks.png

Tomenable
27-05-15, 14:25
But Near Eastern admixture in Yamnaya samples was only about 20-25%. And also we don't really know the chronological order.

They could at first learn herding-farming from herders-farmers, and only then mix with them liberally, getting to those 20%.

Haak et al modeling shows the Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% ancient Karelian like/50% Armenian like. Or, use Iraqi Jews for the Near Eastern component. I think that was even better. Still, 25% might be enough anyway.

I wrote that basing on this data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11vadY5p7JajDxpFbbEOjbIP0IoBdY2mG5YvzXzaG3c0/edit?pli=1#gid=1961124674

http://s24.postimg.org/xjud2oskl/PIE_DNA_eng.png

Angela
27-05-15, 14:55
Bicicleur,

Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison - check "Appendix B" in the link):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

http://s27.postimg.org/lg4bdy7dv/SA_Blacks.png


Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e6ChgL1EC4

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

http://s27.postimg.org/lg4bdy7dv/SA_Blacks.png

Tomenable, the Mexican "Indians" weren't hunter-gatherers. Neither were the Maya or the Inca of Peru. When the Spanish arrived in Latin America they didn't just find primitive hunter gatherers. They also found some empires, based on maize, with cities, a stratified social structure, taxes, a sophisticated system of gods and goddesses, gold, even a calendar. The areas were densely populated. The Aztec alone were said to dominate 15 million people. The small numbers of Spaniards who arrived couldn't totally dominate numerically, although they still dominated socially and culturally. The example is closer to what happened in Europe with the Indo-Europeans, although in that case they were already mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec
"The culture of central Mexico includes maize cultivation, the social division between noble pipiltin and macehualli commoners, a pantheon (featuring Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca), Tlaloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc) and Quetzalcoatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl)), and the calendric system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar) of a xiuhpohualli of 365 days intercalated with a tonalpohualli of 260 days. Particular to the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan was the Mexica patron God Huitzilopochtli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli), twin pyramids, and the ceramic ware known as Aztec I to III.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#cite_note-8)"

The Aztecs built this culture after taking over and admixing with the Toltecs, whom they considered the "source" of all civilization. Actually, agriculture dates to about 3000 BC in certain parts of the Americas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.1360030507/abstract

In Latin America, the "whitest" countries are those which were sparsely populated by "natives" who still practiced hunting and gathering, like Argentina and parts of Brazil, and Chile to some extent. Peru, and countries in the areas which had native cultures which grew corn and potatoes could not be overwhelmed numerically. .

You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

Angela
27-05-15, 15:46
I wrote that basing on this data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11vadY5p7JajDxpFbbEOjbIP0IoBdY2mG5YvzXzaG3c0/edit?pli=1#gid=1961124674

http://s24.postimg.org/xjud2oskl/PIE_DNA_eng.png

I realize people on the net are playing with the data and slicing and dicing it in different ways. They've done it before, only to be found wrong when we get the next set of ancient samples and analysis from the academics.

I have a feeling that "Near East" in their scheme may be their designation for what Lazaridis called "Basal Eurasian". "Southern Eurasia" is probably their term for the ASI like component associated with "Gedrosia", and "Prehistoric Northern Eurasia" probably stands for ANE, which they are determined to prove came from the North and had no association with Central Asia. They may or may not be right about these percents. As they've been wrong innumerable times before, I'll wait for the academics to get hold of a "Basal Eurasian" genome, and an early Neolithic genome from the Near East, and an ancient genome from Central Asia or the south Caucasus. All these analyses are doing, in my opinion, is confusing people. Or, perhaps it's just part of the continuing saga of trying to lower the "Near Eastern" portion in the Yamnaya as much as possible.

The fact is that the modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews whose genomes best fit or match the 50% non ancient Karelian portion of the Yamnaya are Near Easterners, Near Easterners who have "Basal", ANE and some ASI like component as well.

See: Haak et al 2015
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

"The Yamnaya differ from the EHG by sharing fewer alleles with MA1 (|Z|=6.7) suggesting a dilution of ANE ancestry between 5,000-3,000 BCE on the European steppe. This was likely due to admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners, as the most negative f3 statistic in the Yamnaya giving unambiguous evidence of admixture is observed when we model them as a mixture of EHG and present-day Near Eastern populations like Armenians.(Z=-6.3; S17)."

Ed. Also from Haak et al, "We estimate that these two elements each contributed about half the ancestry each of the Yamnaya (S16, S19)..."

Angela
27-05-15, 15:55
if these societies were so egalitarian, why was over 90% of all gold found in just 3-4 graves of the Varna cemetery ?

I agree with you. Gimbutas overestimated the "egalitarianism" that existed in the Balkan farming cultures, in my opinion, and people quoting her research exaggerated it even more. I've personally always felt that as soon as people were able to accumulate a lot of wealth, you started to get some social stratification, and that began with the Neolithic. However, I do think that it accelerated with the metal ages, and that would include the gold and copper working period in the Balkans before the steppe people ever arrived.

However, I don't think we'd be far off in thinking that these steppe cultures were more egalitarian, and perhaps gave women a different role in society than the later cultures that came to dominate in the area.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 16:29
You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.

The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.


The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi


The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

http://s3.postimg.org/4y8hmsmn7/SA_Whites.png

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

Angela
27-05-15, 16:36
Angela: not always, but in this case the genetics proves that the ancient pattern was the same as the modern one.

For the past hundred years many archaeologists held that agriculture spread in Europe because hunter gatherers adopted farming mainly through cultural diffusion, like adopting the use of gunpowder, as you say, and there was basically population continuity, but ancient dna proves that this wasn't the case. Farming was not spread by cultural diffusion. It was spread by people.

As I said above, the people in the European Neolithic communities were totally different autosomally from the hunter-gatherers who had previously lived in those areas. Even the Neolithic men and women who carried hunter gatherer uniparental markers were autosomally Near Eastern farmers. A few hunter-gatherers were absorbed, and the rest died or fled to marginal land or lived in isolated communities. They didn't adopt farming. If they had we would be finding farming communities of autosomally Loschbour like people.

The ancient pattern is the same as the modern pattern.



Angela: Yes, I know HGs would trade. The Amerindians would trade furs and sometimes food with the settlers for cloth and beads and metal tools and weapons. They still eventually got shunted on to marginal land, on the so called "reservations", or they lived as hangers on around European settlements. As to bride exchange, European settlers were certainly not eager to send their daughters to live in Indian camps, and even taking Indian women was only acceptable in the initial settlement periods when the settlers were often mostly men. Once the numbers started to really grow and women arrived, a type of apartheid started to be imposed. You see the same situation in places like South Africa as well as Latin America. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they were mostly men. They took native women. Some of those children admixed with each other, forming the Coloured community. Some of them admixed into the thousands of Dutch settlers who started arriving. That's why you have "white" Afrikaners who find to their surprise that they carry an "African" mtDna or more rarely yDna, or a few percent of SSA autosomally. Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

None of us can know exactly what happened in pre-historic Europe, but we have the evidence of these kinds of interactions throughout history, and now we have ancient Dna, and they agree. Was there some incorporation of hunter gatherer dna? Yes, there was. I think it probably took place upon the initial encounter, but there's nothing to indicate that it was extensive and ongoing. Regardless, if there were a lot of hunter-gatherers around who adopted farming on their own there should be some sign of it in the form of communities of Loschbour like people who took up farming, and we haven't found it yet.

I want to correct my own post to clarify things a little better. The Stuttgart like early European farmers were estimated by Lazaridis et al to contain about 20% "hunter-gatherer" ancestry. Perhaps it was a minority ancestry acquired somewhere in the Near East, or perhaps it was acquired on the way into Europe. The Balkans are often given as an example where it might have taken place. Some of the yDna I2a may have been absorbed there. From the Early Neolithic into the Middle Neolithic, there was some additional absorption of hunter gatherer genetic material by the farming communities.

Also from Haak et al:

"Early European farmers from the Early and Middle Neolithic were closely related but not identical. This is reflected in the fact that Loschbour shared more alleles with post-4000 BCE European farmers from Germany, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, and Italy than with early farmers of Germany, Spain, and Hungary, documenting an increase of hunter-gatherer ancestry in multiple regions of Europe during the course of the Neolithic".

Some of these isolated communities of hunter gatherers in mountains or swamps or other marginal land were slowly absorbed by the farmers, apparently, and perhaps there was some movement south from areas like the North Sea with climate changes. Still, however, the autosomal needle didn't move very far, and there was never any whole sale adoption of agriculture by large groups of hunter gatherers.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 16:56
here was never any whole sale adoption of agriculture by large groups of hunter gatherers.

It seems to me that "large groups of hunter gatherers" simply do not exist. They always live in small groups. ;)

bicicleur
27-05-15, 18:12
Tomenable, the Mexican "Indians" weren't hunter-gatherers. Neither were the Maya or the Inca of Peru. When the Spanish arrived in Latin America they didn't just find primitive hunter gatherers. They also found some empires, based on maize, with cities, a stratified social structure, taxes, a sophisticated system of gods and goddesses, gold, even a calendar. The areas were densely populated. The Aztec alone were said to dominate 15 million people. The small numbers of Spaniards who arrived couldn't totally dominate numerically, although they still dominated socially and culturally. The example is closer to what happened in Europe with the Indo-Europeans, although in that case they were already mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec
"The culture of central Mexico includes maize cultivation, the social division between noble pipiltin and macehualli commoners, a pantheon (featuring Tezcatlipoca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tezcatlipoca), Tlaloc (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaloc) and Quetzalcoatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl)), and the calendric system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_calendar) of a xiuhpohualli of 365 days intercalated with a tonalpohualli of 260 days. Particular to the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan was the Mexica patron God Huitzilopochtli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli), twin pyramids, and the ceramic ware known as Aztec I to III.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec#cite_note-8)"

The Aztecs built this culture after taking over and admixing with the Toltecs, whom they considered the "source" of all civilization. Actually, agriculture dates to about 3000 BC in certain parts of the Americas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.1360030507/abstract

In Latin America, the "whitest" countries are those which were sparsely populated by "natives" who still practiced hunting and gathering, like Argentina and parts of Brazil, and Chile to some extent. Peru, and countries in the areas which had native cultures which grew corn and potatoes could not be overwhelmed numerically. .

You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

it seems to me those Khoikoi were the first Bantoes I mentioned above to arrive in South Africa : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion

indeed every replacement situation is different depending on societal organisation, economy and available technology of the protagonists and also on the geographical situation
therefore you can't generalise for the whole of American colonisation as you can't generalise for the whole of Europe at the time of the neolithic colonisation
e.g. the LBK only colonised only the fertile löss soils , which kept LBK some 200 km seperated from Ertebölle people
I guess that when LBK colonisation became denser, very little of the original HG survived on the European löss soils, but 200 km further north Ertebölle people thrived another 1000 years till arrival of TRB farmers
then again, the Swifterbant people who probably were genetically close to the Ertebölle people interacted in a more pragmatic way with the neolithic colonisers as compared to the hostile Ertebölle warriors. the Swifterbant people succeeded to remain independant while integrating some agriculture to diversifie their economy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swifterbant_culture

Angela
27-05-15, 18:27
The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

http://s3.postimg.org/4y8hmsmn7/SA_Whites.png

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

Given up on the Mexicans, have we? :)

As to South Africa, yes there were other Europeans who came. Obviously I was talking only about the original settlers. Still, the total numbers of European settlers doesn't come anywhere near the numbers that went to the US or Australia.

In terms of the Khoi-San, most of the information on this site comports with my understanding of the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan

"The Bantu people, with advanced agriculture and metalworking technology developed in West Africa from at least 2000 BC, outcompeted and intermarried with the Khoisan in the years after contact and became the dominant population of Southeastern Africa before the arrival of the Dutch in 1652.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan#cite_note-5)"

"Against the traditional interpretation that finds a common origin for the Khoi and San, other evidence has suggested that the ancestors of the Khoi peoples (one subset of the Khoisan) are relatively recent pre-Bantu agricultural immigrants to southern Africa, who abandoned agriculture as the climate dried and either joined the San as hunter-gatherers or retained pastoralism to become the Khoikhoi."

There is indeed Bantu admixture in them. It's posited that the yDna "E" they found among them (varying by group) is an indication that pastoralists moved into the area and admixed with the ancestral peoples long before the Europeans arrived in the area.
http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa


(http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa)

bicicleur
27-05-15, 18:54
It seems to me that "large groups of hunter gatherers" simply do not exist. They always live in small groups. ;)

hunter gatherers in general were mobile small groups, but there are some exceptions

the caves in and near Mount Carmel in the Levant have been populated by humanoids for over 600.000 years because of good hunting grounds and lots of nuts and fruits to be collected
first there was homo Palestinensis who was expelled by Neanderthal some 200.000 years ago, and Neanderthal was expelled by homo sapiens sapiens some 50.000 years ago

also Moravia in Europe was a good place before the ice age, when northern Europe was a cold steppe ; Moravia was a corridor between the northern European plain (northern Germany & Poland) and the Carpathian basin ; every spring and every automn herds of animals would pass through this corridor between their winter and summer grazing fields ; there were permanent HG settlements in Moravia ; it was allready densely inhabited by Neanderthals ; 48000 years ago the Bohunicians came to this place ; it is the oldest European culture that is assigned to homo sapiens sapiens, they settled here before the Balkans were settled

as to the European mesolithic, there were several good fishing and hunting territories :
the best territory was Doggerland, which unfortunaltely for the HG drowned
then there were the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic coast, with the Sado valley in Portugal, the Swifterbant and Ertebölle people, the southern Swedish lakes (Motola)
and the Danube gorges, where large sturgeon fish came to spawn every spring

Fluffy
27-05-15, 18:57
The lack of J2 in aDNA is interesting.
J2 could be related to West Asian component (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26799-Autosomal-map-West-Asian-admixture-%28from-Dodecad%29).
The recent calculations of TMRCA of J2 in West Asia shows that his age is 10.000 so his lack in Old Europe is quite intriguing.
Maybe we must wait some Italian and Greek aDNA.
So to what historic event can be related the West Asian component?

I'm sure J2 will show up in the Neolithic era, with more ancient DNA testing IMO.

bicicleur
27-05-15, 19:04
The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

http://s3.postimg.org/4y8hmsmn7/SA_Whites.png

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

where did you get this?
the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language, the where ethnic E1b1a, their origin is Cameroon, 3000 years ago
the San speak Khoisan language, they are ethnic A & B

Tomenable
27-05-15, 19:22
it seems to me those Khoikoi were the first Bantoes

(...)

the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language

Nope, the Khoikoi spoke the Khoekhoe language, which did not belong to the Bantu family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoekhoe_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi


Given up on the Mexicans, have we? :)

Me hunter, giving up ground to farmers! :)

But - seriously - I know that pre-Columbian Mexico had a civilization, I just didn't get that Bicicleur referred only to foragers.

I don't see a reason why should European interaction with native farmers be dramatically different than that with native hunters, though.

The main difference was that farmers were more numerous - especially such with advanced cultures - as you pointed out. ;)


and Neanderthal was expelled by homo sapiens sapiens some 50.000 years ago

Or outbred and absorbed.

After all on average 1 out of 34 Paleolithic ancestors of modern Eurasians was a Neanderthal.

Scholars from the Max Planck Institute have just discovered a 1/8 Neanderthal 7/8 Human hybrid individual.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 19:30
The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

http://s3.postimg.org/4y8hmsmn7/SA_Whites.png

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

To be clear. We are not only dealing with European or Chinese advanced Farmer Type people, or only pure hunter gatherers like prairie Indians, Eskimo or Australian Aborigines. Obviously there are mixed type populations too. Either mixed by evolution, because of ongoing transition in their diet, from meat to starches, or because of their genetic admixture with farmers who live close by. Even my examples of Amazon Jungle tribe, points to a transition, where women are already farmers but not the men.
To keep picture of this process transparent, let's find an example of pure HGs that we have records of, from beginning of colonialism lets say, and see if they transitioned culturally into being farmers. Assuming they didn't admixed genetically much with farmers. Ideally, we should check their DNA before and after, but this is asking for too much at this time.
Finding graves of WHG or ANE pure guys in context of farming would be a perfect proof for cultural cause of farming.

If it comes to North American Natives or Inuits, they don't find themselves well as farmers, or in city culture, or embracing modern technology. In spite of free education, available government programs, subsidies, quotas for minorities, and all other help. There is only small percentage, and mostly mixed individuals (Native/White) who are doing fine among general population. I really wish it was just a cultural phenomenon. They could have change and fit, as long as they only wanted to. If it is a genetic issue, then we can't help. Unless we stop helping and embrace the cruel natural selection, or wait for designer babies.

Angela
27-05-15, 19:44
The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

where did you get this?
the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language, the where ethnic E1b1a, their origin is Cameroon, 3000 years ago
the San speak Khoisan language, they are ethnic A & B

Their language is separate but some of their words and the "click" sounds, were adopted by Bantu speakers.

As per post number 113:
"There is indeed Bantu admixture in them. It's posited that the yDna "E" they found among them (varying by group) is an indication that pastoralists moved into the area and admixed with the ancestral peoples long before the Europeans arrived in the area."
http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa


(http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa)
(http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa)

bicicleur
27-05-15, 20:01
Nope, the Khoikoi spoke the Khoekhoe language, which did not belong to the Bantu family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoekhoe_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi



Me hunter, giving up ground to farmers! :)

But - seriously - I know that pre-Columbian Mexico had a civilization, I just didn't get that Bicicleur referred only to foragers.

I don't see a reason why should European interaction with native farmers be dramatically different than that with native hunters, though.

The main difference was that farmers were more numerous - especially such with advanced cultures - as you pointed out. ;)



Or outbred and absorbed.

After all on average 1 out of 34 Paleolithic ancestors of modern Eurasians was a Neanderthal.

Scholars from the Max Planck Institute have just discovered a 1/8 Neanderthal 7/8 Human hybrid individual.

ok Khoikoi, that is new to me
what was the situation then when first Europeans arrived?
certainly there were Bantus too, the Zulu tribe spoke Bantu
San, Khoikoi and Bantu, 3 different people or maybe more?
can you tell more?

as for Neanderthal, 50.000 years ago was when they were expelled from the Levant, homo sapiens sapiens hadn't even entered Europe yet
homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal lived side by side in the Levant (both), in the Zagros Mountains (Neanderthal) next to the Persian Gulf area (homo sapiens sapiens) for 75000 years, 125000 till 50000 years ago
there has been some admixture, but quite limited, considering the very long time span ; they were 2 species competing for the same resources

Tomenable
27-05-15, 20:52
certainly there were Bantus too, the Zulu tribe spoke Bantu

But the Zulus lived much farther to the north-east. Cape Town was founded in 1652, and at that time there were no Bantus in that area. Cape Colony was established in 1652, while first encounter with Bantus - the Xhosa (who were the southernmost of all Bantus and they lived in the area north of the Great Fish River) - was shortly before 1779 (when the First Xhosa War broke out). So for 100 years the Dutch interacted only with Non-Bantu tribes. The Zulus lived even farther to the north-east of the Xhosa, Europeans first met them during the reign of King Shaka (1787 - 1828).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhosa_Wars

arvistro
27-05-15, 21:07
@LeBrok,
So, if HG genetical baby grew up in Farmer genetic family and did farming thing since childhood, would he be genetically incapable of that task?

Tomenable
27-05-15, 21:49
@LeBrok,
So, if HG genetical baby grew up in Farmer genetic family and did farming thing since childhood, would he be genetically incapable of that task?

There is only one way to find out - to adopt a Bushman infant by a farmer family. :grin:

Tomenable
27-05-15, 22:00
BTW - here is an interesting explanation on why the Bushmen did not adopt farming:

http://inside.isb.ac.th/jdenby/files/2011/11/Intro-to-Agric-Edible-history-2.pdf

"When asked by an anthropologist why his people had not adopted farming, one Bushman replied:

- Why should we plant, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/02/12/taking-anthropology-jared-diamond/

LeBrok
27-05-15, 22:07
@LeBrok,
So, if HG genetical baby grew up in Farmer genetic family and did farming thing since childhood, would he be genetically incapable of that task?
He will do the task, no doubt, especially in his young age. Culture, family example, pear pressure to conform to way of life, will do the trick. However, he will do it with less enthusiasm, or will need to be forced by constant nagging to do the farmer chores. Furthermore, when he meets others HGs like him in the area, we will be drawn and excited by their lifestyle and mindset to go roam and hunt with them. He would be unhappy as a farmer, and likely would reach point of depression, give up and leave farming for hunting.
In modern times, he could find some job fitting his nature better than farming, like being a ranger or professional soldier. The biggest problem is alcohol and drug abuse, as they lack genetic predispositions to deal with it either. For that reason they can't keep a job and get in trouble with the law. In whole North America and Australia nobody found a solution what to do with this problem. It is sad, because if I'm right, there is no solution.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 22:18
BTW - here is an interesting explanation on why the Bushmen did not adopt farming:

http://inside.isb.ac.th/jdenby/files/2011/11/Intro-to-Agric-Edible-history-2.pdf

"When asked by an anthropologist why his people had not adopted farming, one Bushman replied:

- Why should we plant, when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?"

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/02/12/taking-anthropology-jared-diamond/
Yes, that's how HGs feel about this. Farmer like me, have an urge to control environment. I didn't wait till trees and shrubs will seed themselves on my property. I planted them and in all right places. I also weed out plants where I don't want them. I always wanted to own land too. The funny thing is that I'm not a farmer or gardener and I never was brought up as one. Though, it was always in me, together with 40% of my EEF genes.

Angela
27-05-15, 22:28
I really don't know where all this hating on farmers comes from in our European members. Here in the U.S. there are songs by the score to the joys of the farming life. Heck, they even sing songs about their tractors and combines! :laughing:

"Welcome to the Farm" by that cutie Luke Bryan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K7xz-gawvA

He also has "Country Man" which is fun. :smile:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCXiUC12YnA

Or Tim McGraw...I want to live where the green grass grows, and watch my corn pop up in rows!:grin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aENJoceTXA

arvistro
27-05-15, 22:28
Has not it something also to do with goal vs process oriented folk?
Goal oriented persons are working for goal (hunt) and once done take a rest.
Process oriented persons just execute process right (farm) and can do that for entirety of their careers.

Angela
27-05-15, 22:43
Has not it something also to do with goal vs process oriented folk?
Goal oriented persons are working for goal (hunt) and once done take a rest.
Process oriented persons just execute process right (farm) and can do that for entirety of their careers.

I think it has more to do with looking into the future, with foreseeing possible "bad" situations arising, and being able to plan for them...what if something happens to those particular trees, or the rains don't come on time? Or, wouldn't it be better to have more than one kind of plant, or a better plant that produces more fruit? Wouldn't it also be better to have the animals penned up near the stream and the fields, and they can give birth here so we have an unending supply of them right to hand? We can also use the manure to keep those fields fertile. Then, why don't we see if we can make the animals bigger and fatter and easier to handle or more docile.

It also has to do with being able to defer gratification for years maybe while all these plans are brought to fruition.

So, I think it's foresight, planning ability, focus, frustration tolerance, the ability to delay gratification. I also think LeBrok has hit on something: it's a desire to control the environment, not see oneself as a part of it.

I've also wondered if ADHD is really our name for a type of neurological processing that used to be functional but isn't any longer.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 23:03
Has not it something also to do with goal vs process oriented folk?
Goal oriented persons are working for goal (hunt) and once done take a rest.
Process oriented persons just execute process right (farm) and can do that for entirety of their careers.
Interesting angle. I'll give it a new twist. HGs act on impulse. When they get hungry they go hunting, at least the ones from Amazon. Farmers thinks about food few months in advance, and about next year food (that's why they invented calendar). They both have goals, and use process.
HGs like the process of hunting more than Farmers like process of farming. HGs had 2 million years to adapt to hunting, Farmers only 10,000 years. It is actually quite surprising that farmers got used to the daily grind and repetitive work so fast.

arvistro
27-05-15, 23:09
@Angela
That is actually innovations that you describe, not the farming per se.
I doubt hunters with sufficient IQ have problems to innovate. I even think they are more likely to innovate when forced to farming like activities :)

Farming is very process oriented thing. You do same thing according same rules every season. Because reasons.
Hunting is very goal oriented. You do thing to catch animal. Because you want to catch animal.

ADHD could be the extreme form of hunting.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 23:11
I've also wondered if ADHD is really our name for a type of neurological processing that used to be functional but isn't any longer. I had this thought few years ago. ADHD might be adaptation trait of hunters. It "afflicts" mostly boys anyway. Instead of sitting concentrated in classroom, they would rather go outside and run around the school yard.

Do we have any statistics of ADHD per country? I wonder if there is a difference between South and North Europe? Granted, the tests need to be standardized and from same years.

arvistro
27-05-15, 23:13
Interesting angle. I'll give it a new twist. HGs act on impulse. When they get hungry they go hunting, at least the ones from Amazon. Farmers thinks about food few months in advance, and about next year food (that's why they invented calendar). They both have goals, and use process.
HGs like the process of hunting more than Farmers like process of farming. HGs had 2 million years to adapt to hunting, Farmers only 10,000 years. It is actually quite surprising that farmers got used to the daily grind and repetitive work so fast.
Now you describe some crazy state of hunting.
Normally fishers of the North put nets in the river/sea not when they are hungry, because fish does not come right away. Or they catch whale and divide it, salt it for periods of no whales and do other stuff with it to keep it eatable. They build things to live in winter, they make cloth, not when they get cold.

LeBrok
27-05-15, 23:17
Now you describe some crazy state of hunting.
Normally fishers of the North put nets in the river/sea not when they are hungry, because fish does not come right away. Or they catch whale and divide it, salt it for periods of no whales and do other stuff with it to keep it eatable. They build things to live in winter, they make cloth, not when they get cold.
Today's fishermen are not hunter-gatherers.

I did exaggerated a bit, they do plan but only for day or few in advance.

arvistro
27-05-15, 23:27
Today's fishermen are not hunter-gatherers.

I did exaggerated a bit, they do plan but only for day or few in advance.
Native Americans of the North? Or they started fishing/living in North only after mix with farmers?

LeBrok
27-05-15, 23:37
Native Americans of the North? Or they started fishing/living in North only after mix with farmers?
Oh, you meant these. I don't think they used salt, but yes they preserve food by drying and smoking, and they plan for longer time periods than hunters from South. Good observation.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 23:45
I doubt hunters with sufficient IQ have problems to innovate.

I originally also thought so, but now I change my mind - low IQ is not an obstacle to become farmers.

For example Equatorial Guineans have average IQ of 59 and yet - I checked it - they are farmers.

At least the Fang, who are 80% of the country's population, are farmers. Most of other ethnic groups too.

So the Fang people are famers depite having lower IQs than the Bushmen or the Australian Aborigines.

On the other hand there is this issue of credibility of IQ tests and what do they actually tell us.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 23:49
Here is interesting documentary about one of Brazilian Jungle H-G tribe. Women are farmers, planting and harvesting tapioca, which provide most of tribal food, while men are still hunting, running, chanting, doing drugs and sleeping. Fun, fun, fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ4Obl-XbtI

Looks like they are in transitional phase. Women, the gatherers, were the first one who became farmers, while men were still hunting. Give them couple of thousand of years and men should "understand" value of farming.
Interestingly, they have pet animals, but no idea of herding.
Perhaps scenario goes like this, when women became farmers, men was still hunting for a while. Then men became farmers and didn't have time for long hunts. There was still need for meat proteins, so need for domestication of animals occurred. Men started herding around villages and fields, not to go away for long hunts, and away from farming crops. Herding was a necessity. After few thousands of years the roles blended and men and women farmed and herded together.
In the process, the right mutations were selected, to become better farmers and herders.

Yes, I think some kind of gender based transition is quite likely.

Tomenable
27-05-15, 23:49
By the way, most of modern city dwellers can be described as "supermarket foragers". :)

Tomenable
27-05-15, 23:54
Angela in another thread wrote that usually only people with 120 or higher IQ are capable of innovative thinking.

So most people aren't innovative but societies with higher average IQ will have higher number of innovative individuals.

However, you don't need a population in which everyone is 120 or higher to adopt an innovation.

That's what I wrote - you don't need to be Karl Benz in order to drive a car.

The guy who came up with an idea to grow plants was smart, but his tribe didn't need to be smart to follow his idea.

That's why Equatorial Guineans can be farmers with average IQs of 59 - if that measurement was correct.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 23:58
hunter gatherers in general were mobile small groups, but there are some exceptions

the caves in and near Mount Carmel in the Levant have been populated by humanoids for over 600.000 years because of good hunting grounds and lots of nuts and fruits to be collected
first there was homo Palestinensis who was expelled by Neanderthal some 200.000 years ago, and Neanderthal was expelled by homo sapiens sapiens some 50.000 years ago

also Moravia in Europe was a good place before the ice age, when northern Europe was a cold steppe ; Moravia was a corridor between the northern European plain (northern Germany & Poland) and the Carpathian basin ; every spring and every automn herds of animals would pass through this corridor between their winter and summer grazing fields ; there were permanent HG settlements in Moravia ; it was allready densely inhabited by Neanderthals ; 48000 years ago the Bohunicians came to this place ; it is the oldest European culture that is assigned to homo sapiens sapiens, they settled here before the Balkans were settled

as to the European mesolithic, there were several good fishing and hunting territories :
the best territory was Doggerland, which unfortunaltely for the HG drowned
then there were the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic coast, with the Sado valley in Portugal, the Swifterbant and Ertebölle people, the southern Swedish lakes (Motola)
and the Danube gorges, where large sturgeon fish came to spawn every spring

Those are good examples of high value static food sources (that Moravia one is particularly interesting) that might force HGs to become sedentary or semi-sedentary even if they didn't want to simply because the food source was too good (or maybe even started the process by separating out from a population of HGs those who could stay still and those that couldn't).

It's interesting if you list the possible sources of such static food sources
- wetlands
- coastal fishing
etc

as some of them - like wetlands - might produce a lot of food leading to a sedentary HG lifestyle but they wouldn't necessarily be suitable for evolving farming cos wetlands aren't the right environment for sheep/goats and maybe not right for wild cereals either.

So it seems to me farming/herding would most likely start in regions which had both a really good static food source and also had sheep/goats nearby and maybe wild cereals as well - hence why i'm interested in places that had a lot of fruit trees which also overlapped with wild goats.

Greying Wanderer
27-05-15, 23:59
if these societies were so egalitarian, why was over 90% of all gold found in just 3-4 graves of the Varna cemetery ?

My guess is the difference was a priestly elite vs a warrior elite.

edit: pure guess though

Angela
28-05-15, 00:13
By the way, most of modern city dwellers can be described as "supermarket foragers". :)

Indeed. When a friend of mine, who was flirting with being a vegetarian, heard her husband rhapsodizing about how men are hunters and warriors, she told him to go hunt a pizza for her dinner then. :laughing: How times have changed, yes?

I, on the other hand, love wild game like quail or even wild boar, so the men can go out and hunt with my blessing...I'll even cook it for them. :smile: I'm a hypocrite, so I'd prefer not to do the killing myself.

Fire Haired14
28-05-15, 00:19
I realize people on the net are playing with the data and slicing and dicing it in different ways. They've done it before, only to be found wrong when we get the next set of ancient samples and analysis from the academics.

Blogging amateurs have been right many times. Europeans have been viewed as a mix of"Mediterranean" and "North European" for many years, even before ancient DNA. "Mediterranean" was already known to have equal relation to "SouthWest Asian"(Because of ENF) and "North European"(Because of WHG), and "North European' was known to have almost equal relation to "West Asian"(Because of Yamnaya, and shared ancestry between ANE, WHG) and "Mediterranean"(Because of WHG). In PCAs the ANE, WHG, and ENF signals were already detected, but no one knew exactly how to interpret the PCAs yet.


I have a feeling that "Near East" in their scheme may be their designation for what Lazaridis called "Basal Eurasian".

It's suppose to represent the Near Eastern ancestors of EEF. So, just less WHG and more Basal Eurasian. Everything you need to know about it is on the Eurogenes blog.


They may or may not be right about these percents.

No one is saying the scores in ANE K8 are law. It's like anyother ADMIXTURE.


All these analyses are doing, in my opinion, is confusing people. Or, perhaps it's just part of the continuing saga of trying to lower the "Near Eastern" portion in the Yamnaya as much as possible.


The fact is that the modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews whose genomes best fit or match the 50% non ancient Karelian portion of the Yamnaya are Near Easterners...

Until Haak 2015's leaks, most posters at Eurogenes thought Yamnaya would turn out mostly Near Eastern. It's clear Yamnaya-types made Europe less ENF. WHG is high in all of Europe, and differences are mostly ENF vs ANE.

It is surprising Iraqi_Jew and Armenian fit best as the non-EHG 50% of Yamnaya, considering how high ENF they have. Amateurs using the similar methods created by the authors of Haak 2015, have found other Caucasus pops work just as well. Yamnaya is an ~50/50 mix of EHG and a Near Eastern pop with lots of ANE(aka Teal (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feurogenes.blogspot.com%2F2015%2F0 4%2Fthe-teal-people-did-they-actually-exist.html&ei=hUJmVe_cN8mwyASYh4CQBA&usg=AFQjCNGdIcTNwjRHDJs726pti9BWCt2U0Q&sig2=VpxGoS7DDyYoMrVOhdF0Dw&bvm=bv.93990622,d.b2w)), that's all we can be confident of.

Amateurs have the same tools as academics. They're not biased either.

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 00:24
I really don't know where all this hating on farmers comes from in our European members.

I wonder if this is significant in terms of the various ancestry arguments. It seems to me from reading around that a lot of people want their ancestors to be one thing or another i.e. civilized farmers and pyramid builders or scary tattooed steppe nomad pastoralists or fur-clad mammoth hunters (my personal favorite) and I wonder if the preferred proportions among different populations varies depending on how recently barbarian a population are.

The thought struck me when I was reading an English-language East Asian historical forum when the topic of steppe nomads came up and there was zero romantic appeal of that to the people on the forum, in fact quite a lot of disdain, whereas among a lot of northern euros and some north south Asians it's a big thing.

Although we're all pretty much domesticated now I wonder if the most recently farmer-ed populations have a higher percentage who still have a nomadic gene in them so they still hanker for it.

Fire Haired14
28-05-15, 00:24
I'm sure J2 will show up in the Neolithic era, with more ancient DNA testing IMO.

Something like a founder effect(s) and expansion must have occurred to explain how popular J2 is today, if it did arrive in the Neolithic.

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 00:27
I think it has more to do with looking into the future, with foreseeing possible "bad" situations arising, and being able to plan for them...what if something happens to those particular trees, or the rains don't come on time? Or, wouldn't it be better to have more than one kind of plant, or a better plant that produces more fruit? Wouldn't it also be better to have the animals penned up near the stream and the fields, and they can give birth here so we have an unending supply of them right to hand? We can also use the manure to keep those fields fertile. Then, why don't we see if we can make the animals bigger and fatter and easier to handle or more docile.

It also has to do with being able to defer gratification for years maybe while all these plans are brought to fruition.

So, I think it's foresight, planning ability, focus, frustration tolerance, the ability to delay gratification. I also think LeBrok has hit on something: it's a desire to control the environment, not see oneself as a part of it.

I've also wondered if ADHD is really our name for a type of neurological processing that used to be functional but isn't any longer.

Agree about ADHD. I think the first step in human domestication by cereals (yuk yuk) may have been sanding off or at least reducing the desire to be always moving.

LeBrok
28-05-15, 00:38
Angela in another thread wrote that usually only people with 120 or higher IQ are capable of innovative thinking.

So most people aren't innovative but societies with higher average IQ will have higher number of innovative individuals.

However, you don't need a population in which everyone is 120 or higher to adopt an innovation.

That's what I wrote - you don't need to be Karl Benz in order to drive a car.

The guy who came up with an idea to grow plants was smart, but his tribe didn't need to be smart to follow his idea.

That's why Equatorial Guineans can be farmers with average IQs of 59 - if that measurement was correct.

When watching the documentaries about Amazon Jungle tribes, I'm always "surprised" how similar all the people in the tribe are. Well, surprised from Western point of view, where in Europe and America everybody is quite different in looks and behavior. In small tribes, they all look like brothers and sister, look the same, walk the same, talk the same and like same things. They have pretty much the same genome. I'm assuming, by their similar genetics and same environment, that they all have the same IQ. Let's say their IQ is 80 to 85, across the board.
If it is true that we need IQ 120 to innovate, that would mean that these people won't invent anything. Perhaps their progress, and all closed group hunter gatherers, happens only by lucky accidents?


The guy who came up with an idea to grow plants was smart, but his tribe didn't need to be smart to follow his idea. They accidentally spilled few seeds by their hut, and noticed after a rain, that new grass is growing from these seeds. Still one needs an imagination, that it can be done on a bigger scale, big enough to feed the whole family. Plus, instead of eating collected seeds, one needs to throw them away on the ground. One needs courage and a lot of optimism, lol.
Or maybe, it got really crowded and violent around the wiled fields, and there was a need to move the wheat into a safer place, a private peaceful land? As long as they understood that new plants grow from seeds, they could have done the "transplanting". Often a need is a mother of invention.

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 00:49
When watching the documentaries about Amazon Jungle tribes, I'm always "surprised" how similar all the people in the tribe are. Well, surprised from Western point of view, where in Europe and America everybody is quite different in looks and behavior. In small tribes, they all look like brothers and sister, look the same, walk the same, talk the same and like same things. They have pretty much the same genome. I'm assuming, by their similar genetics and same environment, that they all have the same IQ. Let's say their IQ is 80 to 85, across the board.
If it is true that we need IQ 120 to innovate, that would mean that these people won't invent anything. Perhaps their progress, and all closed group hunter gatherers, happens only by lucky accidents?

I think that maybe speaks to the point that innovations are more likely to occur in places with relatively high population densities (for the time period) - not just that higher effective population size leads to more genetic innovations but also maybe that larger populations have a higher chance of producing the kind of IQ outliers who produce cultural innovations.

Angela
28-05-15, 00:54
I think that maybe speaks to the point that innovations are more likely to occur in places with relatively high population densities (for the time period) - not just that higher effective population size leads to more genetic innovations but also maybe that larger populations have a higher chance of producing the kind of IQ outliers who produce cultural innovations.

That's an excellent observation.

Tomenable
28-05-15, 00:58
ADHD in our societies is considered a disorder, but among hunter-gatherers ADHD traits most likely tended to be favourable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis


The hunter vs. farmer hypothesis states that attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and its counterpart in adults, the adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have their origins in a tendency in those individuals for behaviors characteristic of hunter-gatherer societies over those of farming societies. The hypothesis was proposed by Thom Hartmann and suggest that these conditions may be a result of a form of adaptive behavior.

Hartmann developed the hunter vs. farmer idea as a mental model after his own son was disheartened following a diagnosis of ADHD

http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/evolution


ADHD and Hunter-Gatherers

A study conducted at Northwestern University in 2008 examined two tribal groups in Kenya. One of the tribes was still nomadic, while the other had settled into villages. The researchers were able to identify members of the tribes who displayed ADHD traits. [Eisenberg, 2011]

Specifically, they examined the DRD4 7R, a genetic variant that researches say is linked to novelty-seeking, greater food and drug cravings, and ADHD symptoms.

Research showed that members of the nomadic tribe with ADHD—those who still had to hunt for their food—were better nourished than those without ADHD. Also, those with the same genetic variant in the settled village had more difficultly in the classroom, a major indicator of ADHD in civilized society.

The researchers also noted that unpredictable behavior—a hallmark of ADHD—might have been helpful in protecting our ancestors against livestock raids, robberies, and more. After all, would you want to challenge someone if you had no idea what he or she might do?

In essence, the traits associated with ADHD make for better hunters-gatherers and worse settlers.

===================


Dan Eisenberg, who headed the Northwestern study, co-wrote in an article in San Francisco Medicine, which said that with better understanding of our evolutionary legacy, people with ADHD can pursue interests that are better for them and society.

“Children and adults with ADHD are often made to believe that their ADHD is strictly a disability,” the article stated. “Instead of understanding that their ADHD can be a strength, they are often given the message that it is a flaw that must be solved through medication.”

Peter Gray, Ph.D., a research professor in psychology at Boston College, argues in an article for Psychology Today that ADHD is, on a basic level, a failure to adapt to the conditions of modern schooling.

“From an evolutionary perspective, school is an abnormal environment. Nothing like it ever existed in the long course of evolution during which we acquired our human nature,” Gray wrote. “School is a place where children are expected to spend most of their time sitting quietly in chairs, listening to a teacher talk about things that don't particularly interest them, reading what they are told to read, writing what they are told to write, and feeding memorized information back on tests.”

Until recently in human evolution, children took charge of their own schooling by watching others, asking questions, learning through doing, and so forth. The very structure of modern schools, Gray argues, is why many children today have trouble adjusting to social expectations.

Gray argues that there’s enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that if children are given freedom to learn the way they do best—instead of being forced to adjust to the norms of the classroom—they no longer need medication and can use their ADHD traits to live more healthy and productive lives.

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 01:19
ADHD in our societies is considered a disorder, but among hunter-gatherers ADHD traits most likely tended to be favourable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis



http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/evolution

Wow, I didn't know someone had studied it.

A lot of my extended family have it. One of my uncles was a carpenter and he went around and around the world in a cycle: UK to South Africa to Oz/NZ to US/Can finding work for six months or so and then moving on again. He did that for about 20 years IIRC. Almost all of them do jobs like that (police, construction, military) where you never stay in the same place too long.

LeBrok
28-05-15, 01:27
[QUOTE=Greying Wanderer;457958]
In contrast, in a group of HGs, smart hunter, stupid hunter, strong hunter, weak hunter, are rewarded the same amount of food, therefore smart genes are not selected with same strong force as in farmers case.

I think equal sharing of food, is not exactly equal in amount of food. They don't weigh portions before eating. They all bring food and put it on one pile in a common kitchen. Food is prepared and everybody eats as much as they want from the same source. There is no separate stash for special individuals, there is no preferential treatment of individuals. They are all equal, there is no boss, no shaman, no special status, till the group grows big to hundreds of individuals. Only then special functions are created but a need of controlling and organizing such big group. Though, in such big groups we will see subgroups, and in these subgroups there will be a common kitchen.

LeBrok
28-05-15, 01:38
ADHD in our societies is considered a disorder, but among hunter-gatherers ADHD traits most likely tended to be favourable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_vs._farmer_hypothesis



http://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/evolution



=================== Good job Tomenable. It is interesting that East Asians like Chinese, Japanese and Koreans are so much better spending time behind school desks plus more hours of homework in homes. I believe they have much fewer cases of ADHD. The reason might be that they were longer farmers than European, or went through more intense genetic "farmer" selection, or later mixed less with HGs, or they didn't have so many invasions of steppe nomads like IE and Huns, which I assume brought more case of ADHD with them.

South Korea is a first country in the world to mandate by law maximum hours kids can spend (forced by parents) to extracurricular activity.

arvistro
28-05-15, 07:35
Are you sure about all hunters having same amount of food? That seems counterintuitive.
I somehow feel that farming ensured that even less successful members of society got enough to survive.
Do you have any studies showing that was the case? How about women still looking at well built men which is generally explained by them being better hunters? Why would they care if each hunter got same amount of food?

LeBrok
28-05-15, 08:36
Are you sure about all hunters having same amount of food? That seems counterintuitive. Because you are a farmer, and for you sharing doesn't come equal and is counter-intuitive to your nature and culture.
Actually, I have a very strong sense of justice, and for me it would be unfair if the spoils of the hunt are not divided equally among participants.


I somehow feel that farming ensured that even less successful members of society got enough to survive. Farmer society is stratified. There are rich that have more than most, there is middle class, and there a poor, beggars and homeless. The poor were the first to die from hunger. Sure, people always share if they have enough. But from time to time there were years of failed crops, and then there was nothing to share with the poor (usually not the smartest) and they died first. Unlike the rich (and usually smarter) who could feed more kids than anyone.

Do you have any studies showing that was the case? How about women still looking at well built men which is generally explained by them being better hunters? Why would they care if each hunter got same amount of food? It is the nature of small hunter gatherer groups. They are democratic communes with equal treatment of all, well at least equal among men, the hunters. Tell me how would you divide the meat from the wild boar, when only one man killed it? The one hunter eats all and nothing for the rest? Second day other hunter is lucky to kill, so only he will eat? There is no way to share in small group but equally, especially in times when there is not enough to eat to be full.
At least in a rough sense of equality. I'm sure there are some traditions, like the one that killed, can chose first his favorite part, the liver or heart, etc. They hunt together, they gather together, they eat together, they fight together. It is a natural state of equality, inclusiveness, democracy and cooperation.
This is what I learned, but unfortunately I'm not good bookmarking my sources. Just watch the documentaries I posted in previous posts, they are very informative.

arvistro
28-05-15, 20:47
I think LeBrok was a bit biassed saying that in hunter society strong and weak, smart and stupid had same chances to procreate.

On ADHD:
It is wrong that adhd folk cant focus, they can hyperfocus.
Focus and hyperfocus:
http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/612.html
They cant focus on things not interesting to them (like me) and can hyperfocus on interesting things (like me):
http://elitedaily.com/money/10-successful-people-adhd/

Greying Wanderer
28-05-15, 22:21
I think LeBrok was a bit biassed saying that in hunter society strong and weak, smart and stupid had same chances to procreate.

On ADHD:
It is wrong that adhd folk cant focus, they can hyperfocus.
Focus and hyperfocus:
http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/612.html
They cant focus on things not interesting to them (like me) and can hyperfocus on interesting things (like me):
http://elitedaily.com/money/10-successful-people-adhd/

Perhaps this is an HG -> farmer transition: from a not-focused (most of the time) or hyper-focused (e.g. while tracking) HG trait to being averagely focused all the time trait?


So, why then women like well built men?

I think a lot of stuff like that is simply signaling good physical health.


edit: farmer vs HG wars to replace nomads vs farmer wars :)

Regio X
29-05-15, 02:28
There is at least one - it also happens to be the oldest city discovered so far, older than Jericho:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Qaramel
Neolithic village hidden beneath Bulgaria: 8,000-year-old streets and rows of two-storey houses unearthed
PUBLISHED: 08:50 GMT, 25 May 2015 | UPDATED: 07:36 GMT, 28 May 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3093131/Neolithic-village-hidden-beneath-Bulgaria-8-000-year-old-rows-streets-two-storey-houses-unearthed.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

LeBrok
29-05-15, 05:00
Neolithic village hidden beneath Bulgaria: 8,000-year-old streets and rows of two-storey houses unearthed
PUBLISHED: 08:50 GMT, 25 May 2015 | UPDATED: 07:36 GMT, 28 May 2015

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3093131/Neolithic-village-hidden-beneath-Bulgaria-8-000-year-old-rows-streets-two-storey-houses-unearthed.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490


What is with this burning houses and rebuilding. Same like Cucuteni culture. Doing this they wasted time and resources, and never progress to writing and accounting. Should we blame religion for this?

LeBrok
29-05-15, 17:31
In contrast, in a group of HGs, smart hunter, stupid hunter, strong hunter, weak hunter, are rewarded the same amount of food, therefore smart genes are not selected with same strong force as in farmers case.

I think equal sharing of food, is not exactly equal in amount of food. They don't weigh portions before eating. They all bring food and put it on one pile in a common kitchen. Food is prepared and everybody eats as much as they want from the same source. There is no separate stash for special individuals, there is no preferential treatment of individuals. They are all equal, there is no boss, no shaman, no special status, till the group grows big to hundreds of individuals. Only then special functions are created, by a need of controlling and organizing such big group. Though, in such big groups we will see subgroups, and in these subgroups there will be a common kitchen.

Regio X
29-05-15, 18:17
What is with this burning houses and rebuilding. Same like Cucuteni culture. Doing this they wasted time and resources, and never progress to writing and accounting. Should we blame religion for this?
And they would have done that for fertility. It seems that didn't work, since G2a decreasead. :laughing:

One more: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/ice-age-europeans-roamed-small-bands-fewer-30-brink-extinction_en.html

LeBrok
29-05-15, 18:32
And they would have done that for fertility. It seems that didn't work, since G2a decreasead. :laughing:

One more: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/ice-age-europeans-roamed-small-bands-fewer-30-brink-extinction_en.html


Prof. Pinhasi’s team has found that the genomes sequenced from hunter-gatherers from Hungary and Switzerland between 14 000 to 7 500 years ago are very close to specimens from Denmark or Sweden from the same period.
Will we have some Mezolithic DNA sequenced soon?

So there were very small scattered groups of HGs during Ice Age. I bet they spoke different languages, maybe hundreds of them. There was no one H-G language in prehistoric Europe. Same as scattered Amazon jungle tribes today. Separation produces languages.

Angela
29-05-15, 18:58
And they would have done that for fertility. It seems that didn't work, since G2a decreasead. :laughing:

One more: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/ice-age-europeans-roamed-small-bands-fewer-30-brink-extinction_en.html

Why would they be burning a home down for fertility? We have no way of knowing what it represented; it could have been a way of marking a death...a passage to a different dimension.

The study about ice age Europeans has nothing to do with G2a.

Greying Wanderer
29-05-15, 20:19
What is with this burning houses and rebuilding. Same like Cucuteni culture. Doing this they wasted time and resources, and never progress to writing and accounting. Should we blame religion for this?

My pet theory is it may have been connected to stubble-burning where a field is burned after harvest to get rid of weeds and pests. This might create a connection between fire and fertility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubble_burning

So maybe the practise of stubble-burning fields after harvest led to the idea of cleansing the domestic living space from time to time as well?

Alternatively, (edit: maybe) the


burning houses and rebuilding

didn't happen straight away i.e. they were semi-nomadic and moved location every 10 years or so when the local soil was exhausted between 4-5 village sites and always came back to the same 4-5 spots?

(i.e. the ones with the best drainage / water supply)

Regio X
29-05-15, 20:28
Why would they be burning a home down for fertility? We have no way of knowing what it represented; it could have been a way of marking a death...a passage to a different dimension.

The study about ice age Europeans has nothing to do with G2a.
Angela, I agree. I just answer jokingly to LeBrok on burning a home down - based on the researchers hypothesis -, as you discussed the G2a population decrease in old Europe (now some branches may be growing).

Of course the Ice Age Europeans study has nothing to do with G2a. It was just another link that I shared, since I had just post one (regarding to a Neolithic village recently revealed).

Angela
29-05-15, 21:31
My pet theory is it may have been connected to stubble-burning where a field is burned after harvest to get rid of weeds and pests. This might create a connection between fire and fertility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stubble_burning

So maybe the practise of stubble-burning fields after harvest led to the idea of cleansing the domestic living space from time to time as well?

Alternatively, the



didn't happen straight away i.e. they were semi-nomadic and moved location every 10 years or so when the local soil was exhausted between 4-5 village sites and always came back to the same 4-5 spots?

(i.e. the ones with the best drainage / water supply)

In this particular case, individual homes seem to have been burned at different times.

I think I got the idea about the connection to death from things I've read and videos like this, but your guess is as good as any...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny-gn6sfUF4

Angela
29-05-15, 21:56
Angela, I agree. I just answer jokingly to LeBrok on burning a home down - based on the researchers hypothesis -, as you discussed the G2a population decrease in old Europe (now some branches may be growing).

Of course the Ice Age Europeans study has nothing to do with G2a. It was just another link that I shared, since I had just post one (regarding to a Neolithic village recently revealed).


Angela, I agree. I just answer jokingly to LeBrok on burning a home down - based on the researchers hypothesis -, as you discussed the G2a population decrease in old Europe (now some branches may be growing).

Of course the Ice Age Europeans study has nothing to do with G2a. It was just another link that I shared, since I had just post one (regarding to a Neolithic village recently revealed).

No problem, I just didn't understand where you were going with it.

I don't know if you've seen this video before or know about the exhibit. It was called "The Lost World of Old Europe" and David Anthony was the curator. He starts talking at about 2:15. It was a really great exhibit. I think even the catalog is on line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHLnAgXLMY

This is about Cucuteni-Tripolyte, but they do talk about the burning of houses as part of a cremation ritual where the home site was burned to cleanse it for the next occupants. I don't know the source of the claim, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY1QIv1Fro

MOESAN
30-05-15, 00:37
Mary JAKES and David LUBELL found that Neolitic people 's femora was broader than the Mesolithic people's ones during Meso-Neolithic transition (but here again late southern Mesolithics is a not homogenous population) - laways the same question of sample and origin

Tomenable
30-05-15, 10:49
These are locations of ancient DNA samples of R1a and R1b haplogroups found so far, from period 8000 - 2000 years ago:

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

The two oldest samples - 7500 ybp (from Southern Deer Island, Lake Onega, Karelia) and 6000 ybp (found near the city of Velizh) were hunter-gatherers.

Samples of R1a from Poland and East Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Corded Ware cultures (4600 ybp, 4400 ybp and 4000 ybp), as well as the Lusatian Culture (3100 ybp). Samples of R1b from Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Bell Beaker cultures (4500 ybp and 4300 ybp):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

Only the burial site belonging to Urnfield cultural horizon located near Dorste (3000 ybp) happened to contain both R1a (x2) and R1b (x1):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

The most important of all settlements of the Lusatian Culture found so far, was Biskupin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc_KLJrD054

Tomenable
30-05-15, 10:50
These are locations of ancient DNA samples of R1a and R1b haplogroups found so far, from period 8000 - 2000 years ago:

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

And modern dominant haplogroups by country for comparison - R1b is pink here (while R1a is red like before):

http://s4.postimg.org/kji3ibznx/Dominant_YDNA.png

bicicleur
30-05-15, 13:05
The two oldest samples - 7500 ybp (from Southern Deer Island, Lake Onega, Karelia) and 6000 ybp (found near the city of Velizh) were hunter-gatherers.

Samples of R1a from Poland and East Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Corded Ware cultures (4600 ybp, 4400 ybp and 4000 ybp), as well as the Lusatian Culture (3100 ybp). Samples of R1b from Germany were found in the context of Copper-Bronze Age Bell Beaker cultures (4500 ybp and 4300 ybp):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corded_Ware_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture

Only the burial site belonging to Urnfield cultural horizon located near Dorste (3000 ybp) happened to contain both R1a (x2) and R1b (x1):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture

The most important of all settlements of the Lusatian Culture found so far, was Biskupin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biskupin


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc_KLJrD054

you associate the 3100 ka R1a with Lusatian culture, which originated some 3300 ka
but where exactly did Lusatian originate? and had it spread that far west by 3100 ka?
wikipedia says very little about that
maybe Lusatian originated by R1b Tumulus people going east and mixing with R1a people there

Tomenable
30-05-15, 13:20
Bronze Age burial near Halberstadt from 3100 ybp (which contained R1a haplogroup) was a burial of people of the Lusatian Culture.

You will usually find this sample described as "Urnfield", but Urnfield was not a single culture - it was a cultural horizon.

Lusatian Culture was one of Urnfield cultures. Just like the older Strzyżów culture (R1a from Poland) was one of Corded Ware cultures.


but where exactly did Lusatian originate? and had it spread that far west by 3100 ka?

The main area of the Lusatian culture was Poland, but it extended also in West Ukraine, East Germany and Czechoslovakia.

This map shows the approximate extent of the Lusatian culture (burials near Halberstadt were in the western part of that culture):

http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/map.jpg

And this map shows the location of Halberstadt:

http://s23.postimg.org/ejjquv6d7/Lusatian_Culture.png

Tomenable
30-05-15, 13:26
maybe Lusatian originated by R1b Tumulus people going east and mixing with R1a people there

There is not a single R1b sample in the Lusatian culture so far, and also no any R1b in Corded Ware cultures.

In general there is so far no any R1b in areas to the east of the Elbe River during the Copper, Bronze and Iron Ages.

Few years from now - around 2019 - there should be more samples of ancient Y-DNA available from Polish areas:

"This year [2014] begins a major research program, the goal of which is to examine ancient DNA from several dozen archaeological sites from the area of Poland. This project is supposed to test ancient DNA of inhabitants of Poland from pre-Roman, Roman, early Medieval and Medieval times and compare it to DNA of modern inhabitants. Research is going to last at least 5 years, its authors are - among others - prof. Hanna Koćka-Krenz and prof. Janusz Piontek."

Tomenable
30-05-15, 13:45
maybe Lusatian originated by R1b Tumulus people going east and mixing with R1a people there

The three main theories on origins of Lusatian culture include:

1) Development from the Trzciniec Culture (which also expanded westward):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture

2) Local development from previously existing local "pre-Lusatian" cultures.
3) Migration from the south-east from territories along the Danube River.

An eastward migration is not taken into consideration, AFAIK.


Lusatian culture, which originated some 3300 ka

The Lusatian culture originated some 3400-3350 years ago and lasted until 2500-2400 years ago.

Some enclaves of that culture existed longer than 2500-2400 years ago, even until 2300-2100 years ago.

It was initially a Bronze-working culture, but they later adopted Iron-working from the Hallstatt culture.

Some enclaves of the Lusatian Culture existed until the times of La Tène II / C - so ca. 300 BC - 100 BC.

bicicleur
30-05-15, 15:06
The three main theories on origins of Lusatian culture include:

1) Development from the Trzciniec Culture (which also expanded westward):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture

2) Local development from previously existing local "pre-Lusatian" cultures.
3) Migration from the south-east from territories along the Danube River.

An eastward migration is not taken into consideration, AFAIK.



The Lusatian culture originated some 3400-3350 years ago and lasted until 2500-2400 years ago.

Some enclaves of that culture existed longer than 2500-2400 years ago, even until 2300-2100 years ago.

It was initially a Bronze-working culture, but they later adopted Iron-working from the Hallstatt culture.

Some enclaves of the Lusatian Culture existed until the times of La Tène II / C - so ca. 300 BC - 100 BC.

ok thank you

wikipedia states that Lusatian was influenced by both Treznic and Tumulus though

how did Lusatian end?
was there allready pressure from German tribes in Poland 500 BC?
climate changed 500 BC and the German tribes started moving south ; at the same time the Finns and Saami moved in taking over the territories the German tribes abandonned in the north
German tribes replaced La Tene in many places,
there were some Celts as far north as the Netherlands for a short while, just before being replaced by German tribes,
by the time of Julius Caesar the Suebi were allready in Southern Germany and invading eastern France, German tribes were taking over some territories of the Belgian tribes

Greying Wanderer
31-05-15, 01:31
In this particular case, individual homes seem to have been burned at different times.

I think I got the idea about the connection to death from things I've read and videos like this, but your guess is as good as any...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny-gn6sfUF4

"In this particular case, individual homes seem to have been burned at different times."

Yes I missed that point.

I was thinking more of stuff I've read about Cucuteni where it was said they burned down the whole settlement (dunno if that is correct or not).

edit: cool house

Angela
31-05-15, 01:55
"In this particular case, individual homes seem to have been burned at different times."

Yes I missed that point.

I was thinking more of stuff I've read about Cucuteni where it was said they burned down the whole settlement (dunno if that is correct or not).

edit: cool house

You're right about Cucuteni. They did burn whole settlements down, or at least that's what most researchers now think, every 70 or 80 years, for unknown reasons, although there are a lot of theories, and it went on for about 1600 years.

I don't know if you've read the following article. I thought it was really interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon

It seems as if they were burning the village in a huge, almost cosmic kiln. Perhaps it had some connection to how integral kilns were to their way of life, not only for making pottery, but for metal-working. Could it have been a way of getting rid of earthly impurities through fire, or transforming earth into something "other"? It seems to me it had to have some sort of ritual significance.

LeBrok
31-05-15, 02:05
Sort of crazy thing. By Neolithic standards these were very expensive houses. They had plaster on outside and inside. A very expensive material.
I also can't believe the amount of wood they needed to chop to fill the house to burn it in high temperature. All with stone axes! Crazy!

Greying Wanderer
31-05-15, 02:08
You're right about Cucuteni. They did burn whole settlements down, or at least that's what most researchers now think, every 70 or 80 years, for unknown reasons, although there are a lot of theories, and it went on for about 1600 years.

I don't know if you've read the following article. I thought it was really interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned_house_horizon

It seems as if they were burning the village in a huge, almost cosmic kiln. Perhaps it had some connection to how integral kilns were to their way of life, not only for making pottery, but for metal-working. Could it have been a way of getting rid of earthly impurities through fire, or transforming earth into something "other"? It seems to me it had to have some sort of ritual significance.

That seems quite a plausible connection now you mention it.

#

edit:

burning house horizon article, ty

75-80 year cycle speaks against soil exhaustion as a reason so i'll scratch that theory

the domicide idea - cremating the house - sounds plausible

it's interesting how they got the fire to burn hot enough to fire the clay - my first thought was if the whole town was set on fire and the houses were all close together maybe that created a fire storm?

the second thought was your kiln comment - not sure how it could be achieved but somehow walling the house in like it was in a kiln

(thinking aloud)

edit2:

although my heart belongs to half-yeti mammoth hunters my head is very impressed with Cucuteni

bicicleur
31-05-15, 10:39
That seems quite a plausible connection now you mention it.

#

edit:

burning house horizon article, ty

75-80 year cycle speaks against soil exhaustion as a reason so i'll scratch that theory

the domicide idea - cremating the house - sounds plausible

it's interesting how they got the fire to burn hot enough to fire the clay - my first thought was if the whole town was set on fire and the houses were all close together maybe that created a fire storm?

the second thought was your kiln comment - not sure how it could be achieved but somehow walling the house in like it was in a kiln

(thinking aloud)

edit2:

although my heart belongs to half-yeti mammoth hunters my head is very impressed with Cucuteni

maybe they turned the house itself into a kiln before setting it to fire
the walls were allready mud-plastered
if you would plaster the roof as well, you would have a large kiln

arvistro
31-05-15, 11:55
What about mold on walls?
It may turn into a deadly thing for your lungs.

MOESAN
31-05-15, 13:07
The HG lifestyle often involves following animals for days, weeks or months before you catch and kill them.

"Doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping" is not always the case. Try to survive as a hunter-gatherer for several months.


"Patience, hard work, looking ahead" are not the stereotypical traits typically ascribed to, say, Medieval peasants.



You place too much stress on genetics and not enough on cultural factors - such as social disruption and moral depression, as described here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=104

By the way - "forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle" is the main problem here. People always resist forceful indoctrination of any kind. Living in part of Europe where there was not so long ago forceful indoctrination in Communist lifestyle and ideology, I know that people resisted that indoctrination.


I agree with the good sense of all of your precisions
more: I'm not sure the first ways of life and activities of early Farmers were so different from the HG's ones- concerning body work, continual short local moves can produce a not too different work and results on body as long distances moves to track preys - the supposed effects (gracilization) of sedentization (not proved) and farming are only supposed. we saw yet partly gracilization of Western Europe Mesolithic HGs without knowing the cause(s). I think in crossings with southeastern people begun before offical Neolithic and maybe a general trend affecting the genome, based upon hazard mutations and better adaptation to new environment, even a social/cultural change favorizing dversification of skills can lead to less felt need of seldom big dominant polygame males so less selection in favor of big bodies??? only speculation this last argument!

Tomenable
31-05-15, 14:20
wikipedia states that Lusatian was influenced by both Treznic and Tumulus though

Tumulus preceded Lusatian. Tumulus expanded (either from the west or from the south) into Unetice culture.

Later Lusatian evolved from Trzciniec and expanded westward into Tumulus.

In general it seems that west-east and east-west migrations were very frequent in Centra Europe's prehistory.

Tomenable
31-05-15, 14:26
From Corded Ware and Unetice cultures we have so far: R1a, I2, G and J.

No R1b from those cultures.

Maleth
31-05-15, 15:33
From Corded Ware and Unetice cultures we have so far: R1a, I2, G and J.

No R1b from those cultures.

according to Eupidia Haplogroup chart there seems to be R1b but no G

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/corded_ware_culture.shtml

Tomenable
31-05-15, 15:59
according to Eupidia Haplogroup chart there seems to be R1b but no G

http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/corded_ware_culture.shtml


Then Eupedia has it wrong - that R1b1b2 (Y-DNA) + I1a1 (mtDNA) guy belonged to Bell Beaker, not to Corded Ware:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

http://s11.postimg.org/4rnu55777/Kromsdorf_grave_5.png

The other guy mentioned by Eupedia - R1b (Y-DNA) + K1 (mtDNA) - was from the Bell Beaker cultural context as well:

http://s8.postimg.org/evekstv1h/Kromsdorf_grave_8.png

Perhaps you should tell Maciamo (or whoever is responsible for updating Eupedia's article on CW culture) about this mistake?


but no G

One sample of G was found in Poland in Corded Ware burials from the site at Jagodno, near Wroclaw, from ca. 2800 BC:

http://s11.postimg.org/8ldm3ax0z/Jagodno.png

Tomenable
31-05-15, 16:14
Check the map that I posted on page 7 - all R1b and R1a samples mentioned by Eupedia in that link are also on the map:

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

http://s24.postimg.org/tbvhtfpcl/R1a_vs_R1b.png

Central Germany (just west of the Elbe) apparently was the borderland of R1b (to the west) and R1a (to the east) in Copper-Bronze Ages. But although intermingled in that area, those HGs were found in different cultural contexts - R1b in Bell Beaker, R1a in Corded Ware:

CW = Corded Ware cultures
BB = Bell Beaker cultures
Urn = Urnfield cultures
Lus = Lusatian Culture

Red circle = one sample of R1a
Blue circle = one sample of R1b

ybp = sample age (years before present)

http://s4.postimg.org/5yqhxcvb1/Central_Germany.png

Central Germany was actually the area where both Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures extended:

1) Corded Ware cultures:

https://aratta.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/corded_ware_culture.jpg

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/early_bronze_age_europe.gif

2) Bell Beaker cultures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Beaker_culture.png

The oldest findings of Bell Beakers according to this map were in Northern Italy and / or Iberia (?):

http://s15.postimg.org/p3loxvv9n/Bell_Beaker.png

=================================

One theory says that Bell Beaker cultures originally expanded from Iberia:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img673/9550/ZBbpcw.png

Though other theories maintain that it expanded from the Netherlands or West-Central Europe (West Germany?):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaker_culture#Origins

"(...) There have been numerous proposals by archaeologists as to the origins of the Bell Beaker culture, and debates continued on for decades. Several regions of origin have been postulated, notably the Iberian peninsula, the Netherlands and Central Europe. Similarly, scholars have postulated various mechanisms of spread, including migrations of populations ("folk migrations"), smaller warrior groups, individuals (craftsmen), or a diffusion of ideas and object exchange. (...)"

Tomenable
31-05-15, 16:42
As for Scandinavia:

It seems that I1 was brought to Scandinavia by Non-Indo-European Neolithic farmers from the northern group of TRB culture (Funnel Beaker farmers), who replaced Pitted Ware hunters (I2). R1a-Z284 and R1a-L664 arrived there with Indo-Europeans of Corded Ware cultures. Finally, R1b (probably U106) came with Bell Beakers (who were especially active in Denmark, much less active farther north).

R1a arriving first and R1b arriving later could also explain the current distribution (peak of R1a in Norway, peak of R1b in Denmark).

Even more R1b could later come during the process of so called latenization (Jastorf culture underwent latenization):


Latenization - an archaeological term referring to the diffusion of the Celtic culture called after the Swiss site of La Tène.

Strong Celtic influences are also visible in PGMC (Proto-Germanic) language.

PGMC terms for 'ruler/king', 'kingdom', 'iron', 'medic', 'mail shirt', 'town', etc. were loanwords from Celtic according to Donald Ringe.

In early written sources we also find suspiciously many leaders of Germanic tribes, who had names of Celtic origin (Boiorix, Lugins, Claodicus, Ceasorix, Marbod and famous Ariovistus - all of these personal names appear to be of Celtic linguistic origin).

=====================================

Why do I think that I1 came to Scandinavia with Neolithic TRB farmers ???

Because a sample of I1 was found in LBK culture (Neolithic farmers), from which TRB later evolved.

Of course not entire TRB was I1, but the northernmost group of TRB could become I1 due to a founder effect.

So far all samples of Swedish hunters (Pitted Ware culture and earlier hunter cultures) have been I2.

MOESAN
31-05-15, 20:06
Tumulus preceded Lusatian. Tumulus expanded (either from the west or from the south) into Unetice culture.

Later Lusatian evolved from Trzciniec and expanded westward into Tumulus.

In general it seems that west-east and east-west migrations were very frequent in Centra Europe's prehistory.


the tumulus groups seem being come from South and Southwest (Bohemia, S-Moravia, through Moravia, as did the first "ethnic" Urnfields groups (from Hungary?)- Trzciniec, according to Wikipedia, formed upon ancient territories of 3 considered 'Corded' groups of Poland, and it seems to me it was "Urnfieldized" as well as Tumuli groups - the expansion westwards seem a second development after Lusacian if I red well dates - by the way, even if anecdotic, some skeletons of sparse Urnfields settlements in France showed the so called 'corded' types of Coon, that said for people according some credit to physical anthropology... a provenance from N-E Germany is not discarded by the fact in later development of Urnfields, what is not new it's true.

MOESAN
31-05-15, 20:17
the Y-R1b><R1a distribution in Eneolithic-Early Bronze Age in North germany is interesting: it's a pity we have not denser Y-DNA with deeper clades,so we do bets.
it seems genuine Corded people were for the most Y-R1a people when BBs or "BBs" were Y-R1b -
better resolution is needed here: I feel Y-R1b of Last Corded or Corded-first Urnfield transition of Germany were tather U106 ones when the BBs or Beakerized ones were more L11-U152 (more U152 oriented). Concerning Unetice, the sample of Y-DNA is very very meager! No reasonable bet here.

Fluffy
01-06-15, 03:56
Then Eupedia has it wrong - that R1b1b2 (Y-DNA) + I1a1 (mtDNA) guy belonged to Bellhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#98918402) Beaker, not to Corded Ware:

http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/ancientdna.shtml

http://s11.postimg.org/4rnu55777/Kromsdorf_grave_5.png

The other guy mentioned by Eupedia - R1b (Y-DNA) + K1 (mtDNA) - was from the Bellhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#18819616) Beaker cultural context as well:

http://s8.postimg.org/evekstv1h/Kromsdorf_grave_8.png

Perhaps you should tell Maciamo (or whoever is responsible for updatinghttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#27736761) Eupedia's article on CW culture) about this mistake?



One sample of G was found in Poland in Corded Ware burials from the site at Jagodno, near Wroclaw, from ca. 2800 BC:

http://s11.postimg.org/8ldm3ax0z/Jagodno.png

Thanks Tomenable. This G from Poland at a Corded Ware site often gets overlooked. DNA doesn't lie. And no it isn't remains of the Neolithic.

Fire Haired14
01-06-15, 05:58
Ancient West Eurasian Y DNA.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12G2cfjG0wHWarsl5bB99ridFmvUWzqlZfZ6_e_R6oIA/edit#gid=898544046

Tomenable
01-06-15, 13:11
And no it isn't remains of the Neolithic.

Why not ??? How do you know this ???


Ancient West Eurasian Y DNA.

Thank you - so Tocharians were not Z93 (!).

This makes Z93 an exclusively (?) Indo-Iranian branch.

What subclade of R1a were the Tocharians?

Tone
01-06-15, 18:37
It seems as if they were burning the village in a huge, almost cosmic kiln. Perhaps it had some connection to how integral kilns were to their way of life, not only for making pottery, but for metal-working. Could it have been a way of getting rid of earthly impurities through fire, or transforming earth into something "other"? It seems to me it had to have some sort of ritual significance.

Perhaps. Or maybe the villages burned regularly because, quite simply, out of control fires were a big problem. Tokyo used to burn regularly --- 'The flowers of Edo" is what I believe the Japanese called the fires that used to destroy Tokyo every few decades or so. But who knows....

Tone
01-06-15, 18:49
As for Scandinavia:

R1a arriving first and R1b arriving later could also explain the current distribution (peak of R1a in Norway, peak of R1b in Denmark).

Even more R1b could later come during the process of so called latenization (Jastorf culture underwent latenization):


We can only speculate, but I lean more towards r1b coming first from the East via the Yamna Horizon. R1A Corded Ware came a little later from the Northeast. However know one knows at this point.

I'm still not entirely sure that R1B wasn't hiding out in the far NorthWest with hunter gatherers, having arrived from the East via a northern route sometime during the Mesolithic or Neolithic. But I'm just guessing. There sure is alot of R1B on the North Atlantic fringes and we don't have any Mesolithic data yet from that area. The odds are against that of course, but it can't be ruled out until data is retrieved. It's fun to speculate...

Fluffy
01-06-15, 19:12
[QUOTE=Tomenable;458280]Why not ??? How do you know this ???



Thank you

I don't know for certain. But IMO it was part of Corded Ware rather than the Neolithic because of its location and time frame.

Regio X
01-06-15, 21:16
I don't know if you've seen this video before or know about the exhibit. It was called "The Lost World of Old Europe" and David Anthony was the curator. He starts talking at about 2:15. It was a really great exhibit. I think even the catalog is on line.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cHLnAgXLMY

This is about Cucuteni-Tripolyte, but they do talk about the burning of houses as part of a cremation ritual where the home site was burned to cleanse it for the next occupants. I don't know the source of the claim, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY1QIv1Fro
I had not seen the videos. Excellent. Thanks for sharing.
8 kybp!? Wow! As old as Vashtëmi (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120416113013.htm).

What did cause the replacement of that very advanced European civilization? Where did that people go, and who they influenced?

Regarding to Y-DNA, here is an interesting article (not linked to the videos): http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2015/03/bottleneck-in-human-y-chromosomes-in.html
I apologize if it has already been shared.

LeBrok
01-06-15, 21:56
I had not seen the videos. Excellent. Thanks for sharing.
8 kybp!? Wow! As old as Vashtëmi (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120416113013.htm).

What did cause the replacement of that very advanced European civilization? Where did that people go, and who they influenced?

Regarding to Y-DNA, here is an interesting article (not linked to the videos): http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2015/03/bottleneck-in-human-y-chromosomes-in.html
I apologize if it has already been shared.

IIRC, around year 4,000 BC there was vast depopulation of farming communities in Central Balkans. Most likely caused by cold and dry climate, little ice age, than by invasions. They never came back to the old glory I guess, and soon (1,000 years later) were conquered and partially replaced by IEs. The Neolithic farmer genetic input in Balkans is still strong from 50 to 80%, depending on area. You can say that their children still live among us.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/c4u-chart.png

Angela
01-06-15, 22:08
I had not seen the videos. Excellent. Thanks for sharing.
8 kybp!? Wow! As old as Vashtëmi (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120416113013.htm).

What did cause the replacement of that very advanced European civilization? Where did that people go, and who they influenced?

Regarding to Y-DNA, here is an interesting article (not linked to the videos): http://dienekes.blogspot.gr/2015/03/bottleneck-in-human-y-chromosomes-in.html
I apologize if it has already been shared.

This is David Anthony's take on it:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gFEARIQ6zYoC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=The+End+of+the+Balkan+Neolithic&source=bl&ots=Rt_RDwLOyI&sig=xTl8fQg9qTPbfNpoFmTDE0Zs1nQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YbhsVYfeLpL8gwSC64KwCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwCjgK#v=onepage&q=The%20End%20of%20the%20Balkan%20Neolithic&f=false

There are some gaps because of copyright laws, but you'll get the gist. Just go to page 47 and read from there...it's not that long.

According to Evgeni Chernyk, the great expert on the Copper Age, it was "a catastrophe of colossal scope", brought about, in my opinion, by the incursions of the steppe people as a proximate cause, although like the end of the Bronze Age climate change and an agricultural collapse probably weakened the culture...two examples of "perfect storms" in human affairs that brought great civilizations crashing down.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 02:24
Thank you - so Tocharians were not Z93 (!).

This makes Z93 an exclusively (?) Indo-Iranian branch.

What subclade of R1a were the Tocharians?

I wonder whether their subclade was one of subclades widespread today, or is their subclade largely extinct by now.

Perhaps it is mostly extinct by now (?). But I suppose that it could be downstream of either Z645, Z283 or Z282.

I have made a visualization showing this (and more than this - a simplified tree of R1a; age estimates from YFull):

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

http://s17.postimg.org/hsnaex6xb/R1a_tree.png

Daco-Thracian is a hypothetical language family that was probably closely related to Balto-Slavic language family:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classification_of_Thracian&redirect=no#Daco-Thracian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacian_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracian_language

Fire Haired14
02-06-15, 02:39
We don't know what language(s) the Tarim mummies spoke. It could have been ancestral to Tocherian, but no one knows for sure.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 03:24
"No one knows for sure" only because no written texts in Tocharian language from that period exist.

So in the same way "no one knows for sure" if Germanic existed before year 150 AD (earliest runic inscriptions).

Tocharian is the only reasonable option. And those people (Indo-Iranians in the Altai maybe too) were called Yuezhi by Non-IE neighbours. Tocharian must have split from IE continuum and travel to Tarim Basin early on, because it preserved many archaic features:

http://s2.postimg.org/wrmkvnyix/Tocharian.png

So the Tarim mummies must have been Tocharian-speaking. Anything arriving later on would already be a satem language.

==================================================

Check also this 2009 study by Keyser: http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf
(http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf)

Fire Haired14
02-06-15, 04:04
Germanic is differnt. There are references to it before 0AD. There are no references to Tocherian in 2,000BC. Of course it is likely the Tarim mummies were Tocherians, but there's no prove. That's all I'm saying.

bicicleur
02-06-15, 08:53
"No one knows for sure" only because no written texts in Tocharian language from that period exist.

So in the same way "no one knows for sure" if Germanic existed before year 150 AD (earliest runic inscriptions).

Tocharian is the only reasonable option. And those people (Indo-Iranians in the Altai maybe too) were called Yuezhi by Non-IE neighbours. Tocharian must have split from IE continuum and travel to Tarim Basin early on, because it preserved many archaic features:

http://s2.postimg.org/wrmkvnyix/Tocharian.png

So the Tarim mummies must have been Tocharian-speaking. Anything arriving later on would already be a satem language.

==================================================

Check also this 2009 study by Keyser: http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf
(http://hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf)

IMO Tochars were R1b, alltough some R1a may have joined them.
These R1a were probably not Z93.
Tocharian is estimated 5500 years old, before Indo-Iranian expansion.
Tocharian writings were found in the western Tarim Basin.
Tarim mummies are all less then 4000 years old, after the Indo-Iranian expansion. They were found in the eastern Tarim Basin.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 11:24
Tocharian probably evolved from the same parent language as Indo-Iranian.

But Proto-Tocharian split from that parent language before satemization.

Let's call that hypothetical language Proto-Indo-Tocharo-Iranian.


IMO Tochars were R1b

No evidence for this. All 7 out of 7 male mummies were R1a, but not Z93 (see below).


These R1a were probably not Z93.

(...)

Tarim mummies are all less then 4000 years old, after the Indo-Iranian expansion.

They were tested for M198 (of course it turned out positive) and for Z93 - it turned out negative (!):

http://s10.postimg.org/t0umhibax/Tocharians.png

So Tarim mummies were not Z93, but you insist that they were Indo-Iranic.

Do you know any other example of Indo-Iranians who were R1a but not Z93 ??? :thinking:

Tomenable
02-06-15, 12:27
Tocharian is estimated 5500 years old

Of course these estimates of language age are only very approximate and there is a large margin of error.

The same applies also to formation and TMRCA age estimates for Y-DNA haplogroups. For example when I checked YFull in late April this year, they had TMRCA of Z645 estimated as 5,000 years ago and formation time of Z283 and Z93 as also 5,000 years ago each. But later in May I checked again, and they changed those estimates to 4,900 and 4,900 and 4,900 years ago respectively. This is of course "the most probable" age, they also have data on "Confidence Interval 95%", and it is always a period of time lasting several centuries. What I mean is that Tocharians (or Tarim mummies if you prefer) were for sure under M198 and most certainly under M417. But they could also be under Z645 - the difference of few centuries between estimates of language age and estimates of haplogroup age is insignficant, and may be due to large margins of errors in both estimates.

Tomenable
02-06-15, 12:44
We can only speculate, but I lean more towards r1b coming first from the East via the Yamna Horizon.

Corded Ware came to Scandinavia before Bell Beakers, IIRC. So far it seems that CW was all R1a and BB was all R1b. Plus some Non-R1 hg-s, of course. R1b from Yamna horizon probably went along the Caspian Sea to the south-west to Asia Minor. And later from Asia Minor it entered Europe. I think that this southern route for R1b is more probable than assuming that it expanded westward across Ukraine. Rather, it did that across Turkey. Though it is possible that they took both routes - some went along the Black Sea coast in Ukraine, some crossed the Caucasus into Asia Minor.

Regio X
02-06-15, 20:07
Angela and LeBrok, thank you for the explanation and links.

So, back to DNA, I wonder if were found some ancient DNA from that civilization. This map doesn't show any: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zPTFaw2rnx-E.kfoCf5XA8Lgw