PDA

View Full Version : What is the main haplogroup of Cucuteni-Trypillian (Tripolye) culture?



LeBrok
22-06-15, 17:28
The genetic research is speeding up these days and it shouldn't be long when we have published genomes of many ancient cultures. I think it is time to have a little competition here for bragging rights. Give your best guess.


It is a late Neolithic, so we might see same situation as in Hungary with many I2a? I suspect to see a lot of R1b in northern part of Cucuteni, or maybe R1a?

Multiple choice allowed.



Results are in:
Here are first results from Cucuteni-Trypillia:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/e...35616.full.pdf (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf)


5736
3931-3640 calBCE [3705-3640 calBCE (4890±30 BP, Beta-432808); 3931-3670 calBCE (4985±30 BP, OxA-25991)]
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H5a
G2a2b2a


5735
3911-3659 calBCE (4976±33 BP, OxA-26203)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
T2b
G2a2b2a


5647
3758-3636 calBCE (4888±32 BP, OxA-26204)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
HV
G2a


5750
4000-3600 BCE
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
U8b1b
E


5228
3619-2936 calBCE (4550±90 BP, Ki-13388)
Trypillia_outlier
Trypillia_outlier
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H1b
G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a1





Discussion about results start from post #65:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31334-What-is-the-main-haplogroup-of-Cucuteni-Trypillian-(Tripolye)-culture/page3?p=508470&viewfull=1#post508470

Fluffy
22-06-15, 19:20
Went with R1a and I2.

arvistro
22-06-15, 19:26
Id say I2 as Cucuteni natives.

sparkey
22-06-15, 19:52
If it is I2, I doubt that the most common I2 subclade would be the same as the most common I2 subclade there today.

LeBrok
23-06-15, 01:01
I1 was found in Hungary too, though nobody thinks yet that it would be found in Cucuteni. Some time ago I was thinking that E and J2 was part of Cucuteni and linked to some Neolithic or Copper expansions, but not at the moment.

What if I1 found way to Scandinavia with Corded Ware?

Maleth
23-06-15, 01:20
I1 was found in Hungary too, though nobody thinks yet that it would be found in Cucuteni. Some time ago I was thinking that E and J2 was part of Cucuteni and linked to some Neolithic or Copper expansions, but not at the moment.

What if I1 found way to Scandinavia with Corded Ware?

Il and I2 make around 22% (in present day Romania as a whole) E is only 7% and J's about 5% if its anything to go with.

Greying Wanderer
23-06-15, 14:28
I'm saying R1b to everything at the moment.

Alan
23-06-15, 17:45
Went with G2a, I2 and R1a

bicicleur
23-06-15, 18:09
Cucuteni was a mixture of Starcevo (G2a) , LBK (G2a) and some Anatolian herders (Hamangia-Bojan) (I guess J1)
They may have picked up some local HG (I2) too

Greying Wanderer
24-06-15, 20:31
Cucuteni was a mixture of Starcevo (G2a) , LBK (G2a) and some Anatolian herders (Hamangia-Bojan) (I guess J1)
They may have picked up some local HG (I2) too

Most likely right. My original R1b theory was R1 were mammoth hunters and after they killed all the mammoth they split and while R1a stayed on the steppe R1b settled down around the Black sea (which I assumed had high population density supporting wetlands from the lower sea levels) and as sedentary HGs they adapted to farming when the farmers arrived and then later spread onto the steppe where eventually they lost in a tussle with the horse dudes and ended up as the artisan caste within PIE...

however the finds of early R1b HGs on the steppe made me think that was probably wrong so now I'd say your idea is most likely but I think during the early metal-working / copper-working part of the neolithic R1b has an outside chance of being the right answer to any question :)

(but less so after that era)

holderlin
25-06-15, 23:35
I2 and G2 with a minority of R1a/b

EDIT: What period?

LeBrok
26-06-15, 03:43
I2 and G2 with a minority of R1a/b

EDIT: What period?
Good question, another think would be splitting them into South and North. You can elaborate about these in your post, as I'm not sure we should create 4 threads accommodating time periods and parts of their territory.

I think, south part would sport more G2a and I2 and north influx of R1b and a. I suppose quantity of the latter would rise with time closer to Yamnaya, and Corded period.

Maciamo
26-06-15, 09:47
When I first tried to answer this question in 2009, before the first ancient Y-DNA test was performed, I thought that all Neolithic cultures in Europe would be a blend of G2a, E1b1b, J1 and T. But Cucuteni-Tripolye was different as it clearly had a stronger Mesolithic European influence, which is why I stated from the beginning that I2 would be a major haplogroup, if not the dominant one of this culture. As for the Near Eastern haplogroups, it has since transpired that G2a was the main lineage of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. But I am still convinced that E1b1b, J1 and T1a were also present among Neolithic farmers.

The only thing that changed in my views is that I now believe that E-M78, and more specifically E-V13, arrived in Mediterranean Europe in the late glacial period or during the Mesolithic, crossing directly from North Africa. That implies that E-M78 was found in Neolithic Europe, but as assimilated hunter-gatherers like haplogroups C1a2, F and I. The reason that E1b1b was only found in Neolithic Spain so far is that it was really confined to Mediterranean Europe at least until the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia to western Europe. E-V13 would have expanded from Italy and Greece to the Balkans only during the Copper or Early Bronze Age, perhaps after a few lineages were assimilated by the Indo-European invaders. Therefore I doubt that E-V13 was already present in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine during the Neolithic period.

As for R1a and R1b, this is more difficult. There surely could be some of them in the eastern Cucuteni-Tripillian, especially in the later phase when they started advancing into the Pontic steppe, due to the proximity and possible intermingling with Yamna people. But I seriously doubt that they would more than occasional trace lineages. The way I see it is that the Corded Ware expansion, which started in the northern forest-steppe zone of the Yamna horizon, absorbed the remnant of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture. So as soon as R1a and R1b Corded Ware people moved en masse to western Ukraine, the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture collapsed.


One possible alternative scenario is that the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture was really an almost purely R1a or R1b culture. This is very unlikely based on archaeological evidence, but we could imagine two possible scenarios in which the Cucuteni-Tripillian is one of the cradles of Proto-Indo-European people :

1) In the first one, Cucuteni-Tripillians are essentially R1a people who adopted agriculture upon contact with the Balkanic G2a neighbours. When they moved into the steppe from 3500 BCE, they encountered R1b Yamna people and the merger created the Corded Ware.

2) The Cucuteni-Tripillians were actually R1b-L51 people related to Yamna R1b-Z2103 people. In this most unlikely scenario, the Proto-Italo-Celtic and Proto-Germanic speakers descend from the Cucuteni-Tripillian instead of the Yamna people, while Yamna spawned only the Greek, Albanian, Armenia, Anatolian and Tocharians branches of IE languages.



In conclusion, I think that the most likely possibility is that the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture will be predominantly I2 (over 50% of the lineages, and probably lots of I2a1b-M423 among them), followed by G2a (20-30%), while other haplogroups (C1a2, F, I*, I1, J1, T1a) fill up what's left.

Finalise
26-06-15, 11:18
I threw around the scenario of L51 being a late neolithic farming expansion from Anatolia into the Balkans, given the prevalence of L23* and M269* clades in the middle east and the Balkans, and Yamna Z2103 being a northern up shoot of L23 from the middle east to Maykop people to Volga. In turn, the Z2103 Maykop descendants that made up Yamna would have Indo-Europeanized R1a Forest Steppe people and L51 Cucuteni people. I think there is a discontinuity between the R1b1* hunter gatherer and Yamna Z2013s, even based on something superficial like looks. R1b1* hunter gatherer was most likely light skinned, light eyed, with blonde hair, while Z2103s had darker features. The time span between the two is also dubious. So my theory (not fully convinced personally but throwing stuff out there hoping it sticks) is L51 farmers and R1a-ers were IE-ized by the more sophisticated Z2103 Maykop culture.

holderlin
26-06-15, 22:28
When I first tried to answer this question in 2009, before the first ancient Y-DNA test was performed, I thought that all Neolithic cultures in Europe would be a blend of G2a, E1b1b, J1 and T. But Cucuteni-Tripolye was different as it clearly had a stronger Mesolithic European influence, which is why I stated from the beginning that I2 would be a major haplogroup, if not the dominant one of this culture. As for the Near Eastern haplogroups, it has since transpired that G2a was the main lineage of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. But I am still convinced that E1b1b, J1 and T1a were also present among Neolithic farmers.

The only thing that changed in my views is that I now believe that E-M78, and more specifically E-V13, arrived in Mediterranean Europe in the late glacial period or during the Mesolithic, crossing directly from North Africa. That implies that E-M78 was found in Neolithic Europe, but as assimilated hunter-gatherers like haplogroups C1a2, F and I. The reason that E1b1b was only found in Neolithic Spain so far is that it was really confined to Mediterranean Europe at least until the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia to western Europe. E-V13 would have expanded from Italy and Greece to the Balkans only during the Copper or Early Bronze Age, perhaps after a few lineages were assimilated by the Indo-European invaders. Therefore I doubt that E-V13 was already present in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine during the Neolithic period.

As for R1a and R1b, this is more difficult. There surely could be some of them in the eastern Cucuteni-Tripillian, especially in the later phase when they started advancing into the Pontic steppe, due to the proximity and possible intermingling with Yamna people. But I seriously doubt that they would more than occasional trace lineages. The way I see it is that the Corded Ware expansion, which started in the northern forest-steppe zone of the Yamna horizon, absorbed the remnant of the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture. So as soon as R1a and R1b Corded Ware people moved en masse to western Ukraine, the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture collapsed.


One possible alternative scenario is that the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture was really an almost purely R1a or R1b culture. This is very unlikely based on archaeological evidence, but we could imagine two possible scenarios in which the Cucuteni-Tripillian is one of the cradles of Proto-Indo-European people :

1) In the first one, Cucuteni-Tripillians are essentially R1a people who adopted agriculture upon contact with the Balkanic G2a neighbours. When they moved into the steppe from 3500 BCE, they encountered R1b Yamna people and the merger created the Corded Ware.

2) The Cucuteni-Tripillians were actually R1b-L51 people related to Yamna R1b-Z2103 people. In this most unlikely scenario, the Proto-Italo-Celtic and Proto-Germanic speakers descend from the Cucuteni-Tripillian instead of the Yamna people, while Yamna spawned only the Greek, Albanian, Armenia, Anatolian and Tocharians branches of IE languages.



In conclusion, I think that the most likely possibility is that the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture will be predominantly I2 (over 50% of the lineages, and probably lots of I2a1b-M423 among them), followed by G2a (20-30%), while other haplogroups (C1a2, F, I*, I1, J1, T1a) fill up what's left.

Agreed. To expound a bit on the archaeology:

The thing to look at is the lithic tradition of the mesolithic steppe vs. Balkan Neolithic. The tools originating in the North forest zone, and later appearing in the Pontic Steppe, are of a "macrolithic" tradition that appears to be continuous, or at the very least similar, with that seen in the Kunda-Swiderian culture. Amidst the archaeological nebula this is one thing that is very telling, especially when one compares CT to the Steppe proper.

While we see pottery traditions that clearly represent steppe influence in very early CT (by 4000BC), the lithic industry remains a "micro-lithic" tradition clearly rooted in the balkan neolithic. And likewise as you see evidence of agriculture appear on the mesolithic steppe, you see the lithic industry also remain unchanged; still macro-lithic Kunda-Swiderian type originating in the North. Interestingly you also see a greater degree of fortification in subsequently latter levels of CT, which could indicate a need for defense from steppe peoples.

It remains like this up until evidence of actual Steppe expansion as we near the "eneolithic".

So yeah. CT is not steppe, and is not PIE. It's clearly Balkan Neolithic, so it likely isn't R1. I2 and G2a, probably 50/50 with a minority of R1.

The east Pontic is more complicated with evidence of agriculture and stock breeding much earlier, but thankfully we're speaking of CT.

MOESAN
27-06-15, 00:22
Il and I2 make around 22% (in present day Romania as a whole) E is only 7% and J's about 5% if its anything to go with.

the %s of Y-E1b I have are from an unique survey so they can mislead me, but as a whole Y-E is about at least 15% in Eastern Romania of today.
time and location are of some importance. Cucuteni-Tripolye culture dured some time and the first Y-G2 and maybe some Y-J of first Neolithic inheritage had time to mix a bit with autochtones Y-I2, what is not the proof they did it immediatly. At the daybreak of metals times in the area I'm sure Y-J2 and Y-E1b had taken weight, and more Y-I2 had participed in the mix. At the opposite, I'm not sure Y-R1a (I see more northern or northeastern) had already taken too much weight. Apparently, the Cucuteni-Tripolye population was stayed a short statured one as a whole at Yamnaya times: lack of Y-I2? (but I'm not sure the Y-I2 former population (rather in highlands?, was so highER statured than the farmers descendants at these times, even if today West Balkans and Carpathians populations are tall... just speculation

LeBrok
27-06-15, 02:57
When I first tried to answer this question in 2009, before the first ancient Y-DNA test was performed, I thought that all Neolithic cultures in Europe would be a blend of G2a, E1b1b, J1 and T. But Cucuteni-Tripolye was different as it clearly had a stronger Mesolithic European influence, which is why I stated from the beginning that I2 would be a major haplogroup, if not the dominant one of this culture. As for the Near Eastern haplogroups, it has since transpired that G2a was the main lineage of Near Eastern Neolithic farmers. But I am still convinced that E1b1b, J1 and T1a were also present among Neolithic farmers. I'm still thinking E1 and T1a could be found in some areas in Neolithic Europe. They might have been late comers with copper technology migration, and some carrying Red Sea admixtures.


The only thing that changed in my views is that I now believe that E-M78, and more specifically E-V13, arrived in Mediterranean Europe in the late glacial period or during the Mesolithic, crossing directly from North Africa. That implies that E-M78 was found in Neolithic Europe, but as assimilated hunter-gatherers like haplogroups C1a2, F and I. The reason that E1b1b was only found in Neolithic Spain so far is that it was really confined to Mediterranean Europe at least until the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia to western Europe. E-V13 would have expanded from Italy and Greece to the Balkans only during the Copper or Early Bronze Age, perhaps after a few lineages were assimilated by the Indo-European invaders. Therefore I doubt that E-V13 was already present in Romania, Moldova and Ukraine during the Neolithic period. There is unexplained amount of West African Admixture (IIRC) in WHGs, or even in some UHG in Scandinavia. Someone had to bring it to Iberian refuge, I guess. Perhaps E-V13 can be implicated in this role, jumping Gibraltar from Africa to Iberia in Ice Age?



2) The Cucuteni-Tripillians were actually R1b-L51 people related to Yamna R1b-Z2103 people. In this most unlikely scenario, the Proto-Italo-Celtic and Proto-Germanic speakers descend from the Cucuteni-Tripillian instead of the Yamna people, while Yamna spawned only the Greek, Albanian, Armenia, Anatolian and Tocharians branches of IE languages. This scenario actually crossed my mind, especially when we talking about North Cucuteni/West Ukraine being Celtic/Italic and South Cucuteni being Anatolian/Greek kind.
Corded could be explain by R1a of Northern Forest finally becoming farmers, multiplying and spreading, pushing the Cucuteni type into the Western Europe and Balkans.

Soon we should know how unrealistic it is, lol.




In conclusion, I think that the most likely possibility is that the Cucuteni-Tripillian culture will be predominantly I2 (over 50% of the lineages, and probably lots of I2a1b-M423 among them), followed by G2a (20-30%), while other haplogroups (C1a2, F, I*, I1, J1, T1a) fill up what's left. Most likely, plus some R1a or b in North Cucuteni.

LeBrok
27-06-15, 03:15
While we see pottery traditions that clearly represent steppe influence in very early CT (by 4000BC), the lithic industry remains a "micro-lithic" tradition clearly rooted in the balkan neolithic. And likewise as you see evidence of agriculture appear on the mesolithic steppe, you see the lithic industry also remain unchanged; still macro-lithic Kunda-Swiderian type originating in the North. Interestingly you also see a greater degree of fortification in subsequently latter levels of CT, which could indicate a need for defense from steppe peoples. Steppe people soaked so much culture from Cucuteni that it is almost unbelievable that Cucuteni language wasn't part of the deal. However language is also strongly connected to religion, and judging by these two, they cold have come from the East with kurgan burials.
Cucuteni seemed very relaxed peaceful people. They didn't sport defensive walls, towers and castles, and their religion was rather matriarchal, when judging by figurines. When the dust settled they lost their land, religion and possibly language to the invaders from the Steppe.

Maleth
27-06-15, 08:57
The only thing that changed in my views is that I now believe that E-M78, and more specifically E-V13, arrived in Mediterranean Europe in the late glacial period or during the Mesolithic, crossing directly from North Africa. That implies that E-M78 was found in Neolithic Europe, but as assimilated hunter-gatherers like haplogroups C1a2, F and I. The reason that E1b1b was only found in Neolithic Spain so far is that it was really confined to Mediterranean Europe at least until the Bell Beaker expansion from Iberia to western Europe. E-V13 would have expanded from Italy and Greece to the Balkans only during the Copper or Early Bronze Age, perhaps after a few lineages were assimilated by the Indo-European invaders.

However this seems to be the main stream understanding of how E-V13 entered the Neolithic. Again no North African crossing mentioned. More and more via Gibraltar.

However, in 2010, researchers have studied the genetic diversity of modern populations to throw light on the processes involved in these ancient events. The new study, funded by the Wellcome Trust (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wellcome_Trust), examines the diversity of the Y chromosome. Mark Jobling, who led the research, said: "We focused on the commonest Y-chromosome lineage in Europe, carried by about 110 million men, it follows a gradient from south-east to north-west, reaching almost 100% frequency in Ireland. We looked at how the lineage is distributed, how diverse it is in different parts of Europe, and how old it is." The results suggested that the lineage R1b1b2 (R-M269) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)), like E1b1b (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)) or J (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)) lineages, spread together with farming from the Near East. Priorarchaeological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeology)[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEZvelebil2009a-23)[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEZvelebil2009b-24)[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBellwood2004.5B.5BCategory:Wikipedia_artic les_needing_page_number_citations_from_October_201 3.5D.5D.3Csup_class.3D.22noprint_Inline-Template_.22_style.3D.22white-space:nowrap.3B.22.3E.5B.3Ci.3E.5B.5BWikipedia:Cit ing_sources.7C.3Cspan_title.3D.22This_citation_req uires_a_reference_to_the_specific_page_or_range_of _pages_in_which_the_material_appears..7FUNIQ--nowiki-00000074-QINU.7F_.28October_2013.29.22.3Epage.C2.A0needed.3 C.2Fspan.3E.5D.5D.3C.2Fi.3E.5D.3C.2Fsup.3E-25)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDokl.C3.A1dalBro.C5.BEek1961-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBar-Yosef1998-27)[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEZvelebil1989-28) and metrological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrology)[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTEBraceSeguchiQuintynFox2005-29)[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe#cite_note-FOOTNOTERicautWaelkens2008-30) studies had arrived at similar conclusions in support of the migrationist model.

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

Have there been Neolithic balkan samples taken yet? Do we have results? Can someone put them online?

LeBrok
27-06-15, 09:26
Have there been Neolithic balkan samples taken yet? Do we have results? Can someone put them online?
I don't think we had. There are however neolithic samples from Hungary and there was no E or J hg among them. If E and J happened to be in neolithic, it was most likely late neolithic and they were in some enclaves or in minority proportions.

Maleth
27-06-15, 09:47
I don't think we had. There are however neolithic samples from Hungary and there was no E or J hg among them. If E and J happened to be in neolithic, it was most likely late neolithic and they were in some enclaves or in minority proportions.

Probably as E-V13 and J2b1 have a similar distribution pattern. However one needs to keep in mind Neolithic population densities, refugee areas (from ice age). The regions fall in areas were dna testing cannot be concluded with any reliability. The ones we have come from Cooler climates above the alps including Russia.

Maleth
27-06-15, 09:55
I'm still thinking E1 and T1a could be found in some areas in Neolithic Europe. They might have been late comers with copper technology migration, and some carrying Red Sea admixtures.

There is unexplained amount of West African Admixture (IIRC) in WHGs, or even in some UHG in Scandinavia. Someone had to bring it to Iberian refuge, I guess. Perhaps E-V13 can be implicated in this role, jumping Gibraltar from Africa to Iberia in Ice Age?

Of course it can be possible but it would be one weird scenario considering that E-V13 is nearly non existent in Morrocco or North Africa for that matter (except in some Jewish groups that were not around during these migrations), also Berber dna E-M81 is found in higher numbers then E-V13 in Iberia (if not mistaken that is). So not very possible in my opinion.

arvistro
27-06-15, 10:05
From user East-Pole biodiversity forum.

NG21-10 Vinca sample from Serbia
K8 NG21-10
ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 41.1
East_Eurasian 0
WHG 58.9
Oceanian 0
Pygmy 0
Sub-Saharan 0

If this is somewhat close to truth then there was significant WHG impact before IE in Vinca.

LeBrok
27-06-15, 16:48
From user East-Pole biodiversity forum.

NG21-10 Vinca sample from Serbia
K8 NG21-10
ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 41.1
East_Eurasian 0
WHG 58.9
Oceanian 0
Pygmy 0
Sub-Saharan 0

If this is somewhat close to truth then there was significant WHG impact before IE in Vinca.

She might not be a typical Vinca. High WHG can be a sign that her HG mother, who was 100 WHG, was assimilated into farmer society.

LeBrok
27-06-15, 16:51
Of course it can be possible but it would be one weird scenario considering that E-V13 is nearly non existent in Morrocco or North Africa for that matter (except in some Jewish groups that were not around during these migrations), also Berber dna E-M81 is found in higher numbers then E-V13 in Iberia (if not mistaken that is). So not very possible in my opinion.
Perhaps pre-E-V13 crossed the sea and E-V13 came to existence in Iberia first.

Angela
27-06-15, 17:19
She might not be a typical Vinca. High WHG can be a sign that her HG mother, who was 100 WHG, was assimilated into farmer society.

Just like KO1 in a Hungarian Neolithic village(Koros) was 100% hunter gatherer but all the others, and his descendents, were EEF.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpgIt doesn't absolutely mean that there wasn't more WHG in Vinca than in LBK, but I wouldn't go drawing any firm conclusions yet.

The scenario might have been that when the farmers entered these areas, they mated with a few of the hunter gatherers in the area. With the passage of time, and their large populations, the EEF genes predominated.

Yetos
27-06-15, 18:12
I vote for I1

I vote such cause mostly I1 is crossed with PC1

just possibilities

Angela
27-06-15, 18:30
With regards to E-V13, as Maleth said, the ratio in Iberia is heavily skewed to E-M81, which undoubtedly mostly came directly from North Africa.

Plus, the E-V13 is in a Cardial setting at the entrance to Iberia. Cardial was a Neolithic east to west expansion out of the Balkans where we today find so much E-V13. It could then have moved into Iberia later on, explaining it's distribution there.

In addition to all that, E-123 has now been found in ancient Armenia, which means some ydna "E" lines most probably were involved in the Neolithic cultures of the Near East.

There is E-V13 in the Middle East today, even in interior areas which wouldn't have been much affected by trade.

Is the most logical and parsimonious explanation for the presence of E-V13 in the modern Balkans and adjoining areas really that it went from western North Africa, where it almost doesn't exist today, into Spain and then all the way east into the interior Near East? I don't think so.

This is a map of E-V13 distribution. Regardless of when it got to the Balkans, it came from the east. The flow into Italy might have been in the Neolithic, but a lot of it could also have been mediated by the Greeks from the Bronze Age on...

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif

bicicleur
27-06-15, 19:14
From user East-Pole biodiversity forum.

NG21-10 Vinca sample from Serbia
K8 NG21-10
ANE 0
South_Eurasian 0
ENF 41.1
East_Eurasian 0
WHG 58.9
Oceanian 0
Pygmy 0
Sub-Saharan 0

If this is somewhat close to truth then there was significant WHG impact before IE in Vinca.


if there were EEF in K8 instead of ENF then the view might have been much clearer
but that is the way it goes with admixture analyses ; allways some fogg around

bicicleur
27-06-15, 19:20
Just like KO1 in a Hungarian Neolithic village(Koros) was 100% hunter gatherer but all the others, and his descendents, were EEF.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpgIt doesn't absolutely mean that there wasn't more WHG in Vinca than in LBK, but I wouldn't go drawing any firm conclusions yet.

The scenario might have been that when the farmers entered these areas, they mated with a few of the hunter gatherers in the area. With the passage of time, and their large populations, the EEF genes predominated.

there were HG along the Aegean and Adriatic coastal areas and in the Carpathian basin
in mesolithic times, the are south of the Danube was uninhabited (only 1 mesolithic site found in Varna, that's all for the whole area south of the Danube)
so I guess Balkan neolithic had much less WHG then Hungarian neolithic

bicicleur
27-06-15, 19:25
With regards to E-V13, as Maleth said, the ratio in Iberia is heavily skewed to E-M81, which undoubtedly mostly came directly from North Africa.

Plus, the E-V13 is in a Cardial setting at the entrance to Iberia. Cardial was a Neolithic east to west expansion out of the Balkans where we today find so much E-V13. It could then have moved into Iberia later on, explaining it's distribution there.

In addition to all that, E-123 has now been found in ancient Armenia, which means some ydna "E" lines most probably were involved in the Neolithic cultures of the Near East.

There is E-V13 in the Middle East today, even in interior areas which wouldn't have been much affected by trade.

Is the most logical and parsimonious explanation for the presence of E-V13 in the modern Balkans and adjoining areas really that it went from western North Africa, where it almost doesn't exist today, into Spain and then all the way east into the interior Near East? I don't think so.

This is a map of E-V13 distribution. Regardless of when it got to the Balkans, it came from the east. The flow into Italy might have been in the Neolithic, but a lot of it could also have been mediated by the Greeks from the Bronze Age on...

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif

E-M123 expanded with the Semites, first known of them were Akkadians 3rd mil BC
IMO E-M123 could be bronze age, not neolithic

TRMCA for E-V13 being 4.4 ka looks like a bronze age expansion too
looking at the map above, I'd go for an expansion from the western steppe followed by a secondary expansion in the Balkans, and a later more recent expansion along with Greek colonisers
just guessing - we have to await more data

Sile
27-06-15, 19:43
I am amazed that many here still do not understand that europe was already settled before the youngest Haplogroup marker, R1 , entered Europe.
Many centuries of farming and hunting before any R1 came.

You give the impression that all other markers waited outside of Europe so R1 can enter Europe first.

LeBrok
27-06-15, 20:29
I am amazed that many here still do not understand that europe was already settled before the youngest Haplogroup marker, R1 , entered Europe.
Many centuries of farming and hunting before any R1 came.

You give the impression that all other markers waited outside of Europe so R1 can enter Europe first. I'm sure nobody knows what the heck you are talking about?! Try expressing your thoughts again, and perhaps with a reference to particular post you don't agree with.

MOESAN
28-06-15, 22:45
E-M123 expanded with the Semites, first known of them were Akkadians 3rd mil BC
IMO E-M123 could be bronze age, not neolithic

TRMCA for E-V13 being 4.4 ka looks like a bronze age expansion too
looking at the map above, I'd go for an expansion from the western steppe followed by a secondary expansion in the Balkans, and a later more recent expansion along with Greek colonisers
just guessing - we have to await more data

Sincerely I think E-V13 could have expanded for the most during Bronze Age, (I 'm tempted to put a first expansion before, at the late Cucuteni-Tripolye developments before other moves) but I don't see it expanding FROM Steppes, even Western, I see it rather INTO Steppes. I agree for later colonizations due to Greeks. That said, some of them were there around Mediterranea long before, no way to challenge it!!!

sparkey
29-06-15, 17:24
I vote for I1

I vote such cause mostly I1 is crossed with PC1

just possibilities

I think that I1 is very likely to have had a generally more eastern spread at one point that it does nowadays, so this suggestion isn't a wholly unrealistic possibility. I don't personally think that Cucuteni-Trypillian culture in particular is the ticket to finding a lot of ancient eastern I1, but who knows?

Maciamo
30-06-15, 10:24
Angela, I usually agree with almost everything you write, but not about the origins of E-V13.



Plus, the E-V13 is in a Cardial setting at the entrance to Iberia. Cardial was a Neolithic east to west expansion out of the Balkans where we today find so much E-V13. It could then have moved into Iberia later on, explaining it's distribution there.

Cardial was Neolithic, but E-V13 was only found in a single isolated Neolithic sample so far, while many Mesolithic C1a2, F, I*, I1, I2 popped up everywhere among Neolithic G2a samples. So, IMHO, E-V13 and indeed any E-M78 found in Neolithic Europe were assimilated Mesolithic Mediterranean people. Considering the high frequency of E-V13 in the Balkans today, if it had been among the original farmers, it would be found in all Neolithic settlements. That is not the case. If E-M78 had been Mesolithic HG in southern Europe, just like I1 and I2 had been in central and northern Europe, then it makes sense that few E-M78 show up among Neolithic farmers. They were eventually assimilated, little by little, or hid in the forests and mountains until the PIE Steppe people invaded the Balkans, destroyed the towns of Old Europe and caused a population collapse among Neolithic farmers. By then E-V13 ad J2b hunter-gatherers could have re-emerged in the new economy imposed by R1a and R1b invaders. That's what I explained in the E1b1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) since 2011 and I stand by it.



In addition to all that, E-123 has now been found in ancient Armenia, which means some ydna "E" lines most probably were involved in the Neolithic cultures of the Near East.

E-M123, or actually its subclade E-M34, is the only type of E1b1b that I have linked to the Neolithic expansion. I remember mentioning it when Napoleon was found to belong to E-M34 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27225-Napoleon-I-belonged-to-haplogroup-E1b1b1c1*-%28E-M34%29).


There is E-V13 in the Middle East today, even in interior areas which wouldn't have been much affected by trade.

The E-V13 is western Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and Libya can easily be explained by the Greek colonisation, followed by to Roman occupation, followed by the Byzantine rule. Overall that's over 1500 years of Greek or Roman presence in the region. Actually it's surprising that there isn't more E-V13 ! It's harder to explain the presence of E-V13 around Kurdistan, Iran and the Caucasus, except if E-V13 was a minority lineage of a PIE culture. I don't have data about E-V13 in Central Asia and India, but I think it is scarce. Nonethless, Kurdistan also happens to have an unsual amount of East European I2a1, R1a and even J2b, so it is not impossible that a back migration brought all these haplogroups together. Some will claim that it is the impact of the Greek colonisation too, since Alexander and his men had a particular attraction for Babylon, the largest city in his empire. Just speculations though.




Is the most logical and parsimonious explanation for the presence of E-V13 in the modern Balkans and adjoining areas really that it went from western North Africa, where it almost doesn't exist today, into Spain and then all the way east into the interior Near East? I don't think so.

No, from Tunisia to Sicily via Pantelleria island, as explained here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30814-Where-did-E-V13-originate?p=447984&viewfull=1#post447984).

Maleth
30-06-15, 12:22
Perhaps pre-E-V13 crossed the sea and E-V13 came to existence in Iberia first.

Via Gibraltar you mean? Pre-E-V13 (M78) is found in Eastern North Africa mostly and z1919 seems to have travelled via East route. We have some old Druze samples. (We do not have enough samples yet from these regions) All major papers and National geographic claim an Eastern entry to the balkans so thats the mainstream understanding at present. Is this definite? No but one can only reason things out according to present indicators. It seems we are now even coming closer to the fact that E-V13 has been mutated in Europe (Balkans). On the other hand although E-V13 is found in very low frequencies in North Africa (1 /2%) we dont have any ancient dna sampling from southern Spain or Southern Italy......and neither in Balkan proper for that matter. Until we have these samples at hand one can only draw a picture with the current data and understandings and probabilities. Surprises do happen and theories have been changed, but only backed with scientific evidence.

There is also the fact once again (in the new Trombetta paper) there has been a confirmation of a separation of roughly 10000 years between the birth of M78 (in North East Africa) and E-V13 which sets a comfortable period for travelling out to much further geographical locations, so travelling up at eastern route (Natufian territory) is well within reason.

See this map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/E1b1bRoute.png


Notice this:-

E-M78[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&action=edit&section=9)]





The most basal and rare E-M78 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-M78)* paragroup has been found at lower frequencies in Moroccan Arabs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_genetics#E-M78

(arabs as people who arrived from the Levant in more recent event and not Berbers)

Notice also this:-

On the other hand, while there were apparently direct migrations from North Africa to Iberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula) and Southern Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Italy) (of people carrying E-V68*, E-V12, E-V22, and E-V65), the majority of E-M78 lineages found in Europe belong to the E-V13 sub-clade which appears to have entered Europe at some time undeterminded from the Near East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East), where it apparently originated, via the Balkans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

Angela
30-06-15, 17:02
Via Gibraltar you mean? Pre-E-V13 (M78) is found in Eastern North Africa mostly and z1919 seems to have travelled via East route. We have some old Druze samples. (We do not have enough samples yet from these regions) All major papers and National geographic claim an Eastern entry to the balkans so thats the mainstream understanding at present. Is this definite? No but one can only reason things out according to present indicators. It seems we are now even coming closer to the fact that E-V13 has been mutated in Europe (Balkans). On the other hand although E-V13 is found in very low frequencies in North Africa (1 /2%) we dont have any ancient dna sampling from southern Spain or Southern Italy......and neither in Balkan proper for that matter. Until we have these samples at hand one can only draw a picture with the current data and understandings and probabilities. Surprises do happen and theories have been changed, but only backed with scientific evidence.

There is also the fact once again (in the new Trombetta paper) there has been a confirmation of a separation of roughly 10000 years between the birth of M78 (in North East Africa) and E-V13 which sets a comfortable period for travelling out to much further geographical locations, so travelling up at eastern route (Natufian territory) is well within reason.

See this map

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/E1b1bRoute.png


Notice this:-

E-M78[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moroccan_genetics&action=edit&section=9)]





The most basal and rare E-M78 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-M78)* paragroup has been found at lower frequencies in Moroccan Arabs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_genetics#E-M78

(arabs as people who arrived from the Levant in more recent event and not Berbers)

Notice also this:-

On the other hand, while there were apparently direct migrations from North Africa to Iberia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberian_Peninsula) and Southern Italy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Italy) (of people carrying E-V68*, E-V12, E-V22, and E-V65), the majority of E-M78 lineages found in Europe belong to the E-V13 sub-clade which appears to have entered Europe at some time undeterminded from the Near East (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_East), where it apparently originated, via the Balkans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

This is how I see it as well, since sailing directly from North Africa to Italy is difficult because the ocean and wind currents flow east. That's why even today so many of the refugees die in the water. Such a direct route was possible by the first millennium BC, so some of those other "E" clades could have come with the Carthaginians, for example, but the safest route, the one taken by Cleopatra, was still the Bronze Age and Neolithic Age traditional route of sailing east along the southern Mediterranean coast, up the Levant coast and then west to reach Sicily.

It's not something that can be resolved without ancient dna, and hopefully we won't have to wait long for answers. We need some yDna from the Neolithic era Levant. I know they have a lot of Natufian material, for example. Autosomal too, of course. I also don't know what on earth is holding up the research from the Bean Project. They've supposedly been studying those mesolithic era bones from the Greek islands for years now.

As for the map, I'm not sure about the sourcing of M-81. Given the autosomal results of the Berbers, it's possible that it branched off nearer to North Africa.

Angela
30-06-15, 17:12
Angela, I usually agree with almost everything you write, but not about the origins of E-V13.



Cardial was Neolithic, but E-V13 was only found in a single isolated Neolithic sample so far, while many Mesolithic C1a2, F, I*, I1, I2 popped up everywhere among Neolithic G2a samples. So, IMHO, E-V13 and indeed any E-M78 found in Neolithic Europe were assimilated Mesolithic Mediterranean people. Considering the high frequency of E-V13 in the Balkans today, if it had been among the original farmers, it would be found in all Neolithic settlements. That is not the case. If E-M78 had been Mesolithic HG in southern Europe, just like I1 and I2 had been in central and northern Europe, then it makes sense that few E-M78 show up among Neolithic farmers. They were eventually assimilated, little by little, or hid in the forests and mountains until the PIE Steppe people invaded the Balkans, destroyed the towns of Old Europe and caused a population collapse among Neolithic farmers. By then E-V13 ad J2b hunter-gatherers could have re-emerged in the new economy imposed by R1a and R1b invaders. That's what I explained in the E1b1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml#ice_age) since 2011 and I stand by it.



E-M123, or actually its subclade E-M34, is the only type of E1b1b that I have linked to the Neolithic expansion. I remember mentioning it when Napoleon was found to belong to E-M34 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27225-Napoleon-I-belonged-to-haplogroup-E1b1b1c1*-%28E-M34%29).



The E-V13 is western Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt and Libya can easily be explained by the Greek colonisation, followed by to Roman occupation, followed by the Byzantine rule. Overall that's over 1500 years of Greek or Roman presence in the region. Actually it's surprising that there isn't more E-V13 ! It's harder to explain the presence of E-V13 around Kurdistan, Iran and the Caucasus, except if E-V13 was a minority lineage of a PIE culture. I don't have data about E-V13 in Central Asia and India, but I think it is scarce. Nonethless, Kurdistan also happens to have an unsual amount of East European I2a1, R1a and even J2b, so it is not impossible that a back migration brought all these haplogroups together. Some will claim that it is the impact of the Greek colonisation too, since Alexander and his men had a particular attraction for Babylon, the largest city in his empire. Just speculations though.





No, from Tunisia to Sicily via Pantelleria island, as explained here (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30814-Where-did-E-V13-originate?p=447984&viewfull=1#post447984).

Well, it would be boring if we agreed on absolutely everything, yes? :) You proved me wrong about J2, since I said the earliest entry was probably late Neolithic, and it's definitely at least as old in Europe as the transition from Middle Neolithic to Late Neolithic, so you may be right about this as well. I just think that, as I said in the above post, sailing in the Mesolithic, or even the early Neolithic, from Tunisia to Pantelleria with your tool kit and supplies is not as easy as it looks on paper, both from personal experience and from what I know of the known sea routes of the past. I also think the snp trail of z1919 is interesting.

Stranger things have happened, though, so I'm totally open to whatever the ancient dna shows.

E-M78 might still have reached Greece and the Balkans by the Mesolithic, even if they followed the Levant coast from northeastern Africa via Egypt.

Maleth
30-06-15, 18:24
I know they have a lot of Natufian material, for example. Autosomal too, of course. I also don't know what on earth is holding up the research from the Bean Project. They've supposedly been studying those mesolithic era bones from the Greek islands for years now.

That would settle or bring much closer a better understand of origins and routes.


As for the map, I'm not sure about the sourcing of M-81. Given the autosomal results of the Berbers, it's possible that it branched off nearer to North Africa.

I believe what we can tell with a certain amount of certainty is it has moved to North east Africa from where ever it mutated which was probably somewhere central in North Africa or even further South. Most of the E-m81 found in Middle east and South Europe could very well be to be much more attributed to recent migrations although one cannot exclude more ancient entries via Gibraltar into Europe. (that has been extensively discussed in some Iberian thread)

E-M81 is the most common Y-chromosome haplogroup in North Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Africa), dominated by its subclade E-M183. It is thought to have originated in the area of North Africa 5,600 years ago[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-Cruciani2004-2)[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-Arredi-38) or 13,900 years ago.[34] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-39) This haplogroup reaches a mean frequency of 42% in North Africa, decreasing in frequency from approximatelya) (notice the difference from East to West North Africa. This is the opposite to E-78 (where E-V13 stems from) that moved to an eastern direction probably at a much earlier date) 80% or more in some Moroccan Berber populations, including Saharawis, to approximately 10% to the east of this range in Egypt.[33] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-Arredi-38)[35] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-40)[36] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#cite_note-41)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)#E-M81

Maleth
30-06-15, 18:32
E-M78 might still have reached Greece and the Balkans by the Mesolithic, even if they followed the Levant coast from northeastern Africa via Egypt.

Bulgaria could well be on the cards too

Finalise
01-07-15, 01:17
EV-13 having such a different distribution from the other E clades due to it being a Paleolithic/Mesolithic HG group would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that we now have E groups in Lengyel and Sopot farming cultures in Balkans and Central Europe. If these turn out to be EV-13, then the HG theory would be rendered asinine. What surprises me is the Bronze Age expansion dating from TMRCA analysis.The valid theories so far are 1) A Neolithic expansion from Western Asia (probably from Cardial Ware). This is supported by the fact that it's found in Spain, and western Croatia/Hungary, if the new samples are proven to be EV13. These places match well the expansion of the Cardial Ware movements. We also have to keep in mind that most archaeologists propose TWO independent farming movements into Europe. So here could lie the EV13-J/G dichotomy. 2) A HG marker from Mesolithic times (N. Africa?). This is supported by the marker's relative scarcity in farming sites, and would gather more fuel if the Lengyel and Sopot samples are a different type of E.3) An Indo-Europeanized farmer group from Cucuteni that expanded into the Balkans during the Bronze Age (along with J2). These could have been the linguistic pre-cursors to the Hellenes, Phrygians, Thraco-Illyrians, etc... and would maybe explain the lack of the Volga-Yamna component in these IE speaking areas. This is supported by the very young TMRCA analysis that pinpoints to a Bronze Age expansion, it's distribution in European only areas, and IE speaking Middle Eastern places like Kurdistan.

Angela
01-07-15, 01:25
EV-13 having such a different distribution from the other E clades due to it being a Paleolithic/Mesolithic HG group would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that we now have E groups in Lengyel and Sopot farming cultures in Balkans and Central Europe. If these turn out to be EV-13, then the HG theory would be rendered asinine. What surprises me is the Bronze Age expansion dating from TMRCA analysis.The valid theories so far are 1) A Neolithic expansion from Western Asia (probably from Cardial Ware). This is supported by the fact that it's found in Spain, and western Croatia/Hungary, if the new samples are proven to be EV13. These places match well the expansion of the Cardial Ware movements. We also have to keep in mind that most archaeologists propose TWO independent farming movements into Europe. So here could lie the EV13-J/G dichotomy. 2) A HG marker from Mesolithic times (N. Africa?). This is supported by the marker's relative scarcity in farming sites, and would gather more fuel if the Lengyel and Sopot samples are a different type of E.3) An Indo-Europeanized farmer group from Cucuteni that expanded into the Balkans during the Bronze Age (along with J2). These could have been the linguistic pre-cursors to the Hellenes, Phrygians, Thraco-Illyrians, etc... and would maybe explain the lack of the Volga-Yamna component in these IE speaking areas. This is supported by the very young TMRCA analysis that pinpoints to a Bronze Age expansion, it's distribution in European only areas, and IE speaking Middle Eastern places like Kurdistan.

It's Neolithic, not Bronze Age in Europe.

LeBrok
01-07-15, 02:04
For now we can make an educated guess that G2a were the original farmers. At the point when G2a developed farming package in Fertile Crescent and started to spread, we can make another educated guess, that the rest of haplogroups belonged to hunter gatherers. The uncertainty still exists where and when the rest of haplogroups were found and picked up by G2a farmers? From that point on every haplogroup (almost) started to grow and spread by and within farming communities.
Sorry for stating the obvious but some people are missing this mechanism behind Neolithic success and explosion of existing and new haplogroups.

Tomenable
09-07-15, 12:55
She might not be a typical Vinca. High WHG can be a sign that her HG mother, who was 100 WHG, was assimilated into farmer society.
Just like KO1 in a Hungarian Neolithic village(Koros) was 100% hunter gatherer but all the others, and his descendents, were EEF.

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141021/ncomms6257/images/ncomms6257-f2.jpg

Oh, thank you Angela and LeBrok! :good_job: This is great news, a 100% genetic hunter, who was a cultural farmer!

Do you remember our discussion about hunter-derived DNA in agricultural societies, from this thread?: :wary2:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

In that thread we argued whether one could become a farmer without being admixed by farmer DNA first.

We argued about the sequence of events, chronology - whether pure hunters were first assimilated by farmer communities, learned how to farm - and only then, in next generations, they mixed with farmers; or whether they were first "raped" and only their genetically mixed offspring could learn how to farm.

You claimed that all farmers found up to that point (when we discussed) - even if they had hunter Y-DNA or mtDNA - were autosomally not "pure" HG, but farmer admixed.

I replied, that the reason for this was because finding a pure hunter in a farming community would be like finding a needle in a haystack, because they were going to be pure only during first few generations (at best), while their offspring in next generations had to be farmer-admixed due to intermarriages.

Apparently they have just found a needle in a haystack, and it kind of confirms my point of view, you must admit. :cool-v:


The scenario might have been that when the farmers entered these areas, they mated with a few of the hunter gatherers in the area. With the passage of time, and their large populations, the EEF genes predominated.

Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.

Angela
09-07-15, 15:22
Oh, thank you Angela and LeBrok! http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/good_job.gif This is great news, a 100% genetic hunter, who was a cultural farmer!

Do you remember our discussion about hunter-derived DNA in agricultural societies, from this thread?: http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/wary.gif

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31250-Mezolithic-Neolithic-vs-Chalcolithic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

In that thread we argued whether one could become a farmer without being admixed by farmer DNA first.

We argued about the sequence of events, chronology - whether pure hunters were first assimilated by farmer communities, learned how to farm - and only then, in next generations, they mixed with farmers; or whether they were first "raped" and only their genetically mixed offspring could learn how to farm.

You claimed that all farmers found up to that point (when we discussed) - even if they had hunter Y-DNA or mtDNA - were autosomally not "pure" HG, but farmer admixed.

I replied, that the reason for this was because finding a pure hunter in a farming community would be like finding a needle in a haystack, because they were going to be pure only during first few generations (at best), while their offspring in next generations had to be farmer-admixed due to intermarriages.

Apparently they have just found a needle in a haystack, and it kind of confirms my point of view, you must admit. http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/smilies/main/cool-v.gif



Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.


I'm afraid you've missed the point. We have found no, and I repeat no example where a community of hunter-gatherers, upon encountering the early farmers, instantly or even quickly adopted farming. The cultural diffusion method of the spread of agriculture was incorrect.

What we have found are situations like this where an individual hunter-gatherer, perhaps a slave, perhaps just one man who for whatever reason decided to join them, was adopted into the community. Eventually, because he was "outnumbered", if you will, by the genetic "farmers", his descendents were "farmers" genetically. That's why we have I2a and I1 farmers who are EEF. There seems to have been an absorption of a few women, too, but fewer, I think, at least in Central Europe, and if we are talking about the introgression of U4 and U5. There things stood for at least a 1000 years if my memory serves.

So, what did the rest of the hunter-gatherers do, the ones who weren't absorbed genetically? Well, given the fact that we find so few remaining settlements, and, to my knowledge, no new settlements in the core areas, I think they might just have left. A few hunter-gatherers might have lived in inaccessible and worthless mountain land (to the farmers), but the majority were probably in the northern fringe and the Atlantic fringe, and I think there was a reservoir of them far to the east and in the northeast.

Now, at a certain point Haak et al claim to see evidence of WHG "resurgence". It's my own belief, from when I did some research on that time period that it occurred once the farmers, now having adapted their "agricultural package" to the new environments and types of land, moved into outlying areas. I also think that it was a time of climate change and there was a movement south and west from some of the reservoir areas. When their way of life became more and more untenable some of them did enter into and were absorbed by farmer communities.

I think part of the problem here is that some posters are simplifying the ideas presented, and in the process distorting them. I don't think LeBrok ever said, and I know I certainly never said that it was impossible for hunter gatherers to learn farming. That would be silly. After all, the first farmers in the Near East were hunter-gatherers, were they not? They weren't planted here on earth fully formed by aliens. The point is that hunter-gatherers the world over adopt farming with great difficulty, slowly, and often when they have run out of alternatives.

I also think a good part of the WHG in some Europeans actually came from the east. The more pastoralist based society of the Indo-Europeans may have been a more attractive alternative for the hunter-gatherers. We have the example of the Australian aborigines who seem to have had much less difficulty becoming stockmen for ranchers than settling down to farm or learn a trade in the cities. I don't think that a mission type system like that used by the Spanish in their conquest of the Americas would have worked on the hunter-gatherers, although it might have been used to impose a sort of serfdom on the farmers.

"Missions varied enormously in their economic and religious success. Some could not support themselves; others developed fertile fields and vineyards and huge herds of cattle. Virtually all successful religious conversion was among sedentary Indians who were easier to control and more adaptable to agriculture and herding. The few attempts to convert such warlike nomads as the Apaches and Comanches failed dismally."
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/spanish-missions-us-history

LeBrok
09-07-15, 16:24
Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.
He wasn't found in a proper grave to indicate belonging to the farming community, but rather his bones were scattered around the village. He might as well bin killed while stealing from farmers and was eaten by dogs.

Tomenable
09-07-15, 16:45
The cultural diffusion method of the spread of agriculture was incorrect.

Royal Society doesn't agree with claims that the diffusion of agriculture was only demic. It currently argues for a mixed partially demic, partially cultural model - in some areas more demic, in others more cultural.

"Demic and cultural diffusion propagated the Neolithic transition across different regions of Europe":

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30940-Autosomal-analysis-of-Yamna-Corded-Ware-and-Bell-Beaker-samples?p=461156&viewfull=1#post461156

We also find an increasing amount of HG ancestry - both autosomal and uniparental - in Middle and Late Neolithic samples, compared to Early Neolithic ones. How do you explain the increase of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic, compared to Early Neolithic? IMHO more and more hunters were adopting farming, and the initial impetus of demic diffusion of Near Eastern farmers slowed down. In Early Neolithic times farming was spreading mostly via migration, but in later periods of Neolithic an increasingly larger role was played by assimilation of individual local HG groups into larger agricultural communities, and maybe also by adoption of agriculture by some of local HG tribes.

More and more of uniparental markers previously thought to be brought in by Near Eastern farmers, now turn out to have been present in some groups of European hunters already in Paleolithic times. For example mtDNA lineage H - long thought to be brought into to Europe by Neolithic farmers, turns out to be Paleolithic (link):

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.fi/2015/04/achilles-heel-of-admixture-analyses.html


However I have to strongly question your claim: "mtDna H is usually connected to ancient farmer populations, to the first farmers in Europe". That is simply not true.

The oldest mtDNA H in Europe (it has been just made public) is a from a Paleolithic woman from Cantabria (Iberian Peninsula). Additionally mtDNA H has been unmistakably detected in other two Cantabrian Magdalenian samples (100%), in one Epipaleolithic Basque sample (33%), in one Epipaleolithic Karelian sample (11%) and in one transitional Meso-Neolithic sample from Franchthi cave (Greece). There are other less confirmed (HVS-I only) data suggesting also loads of mtDNA H in Epipaleolithic Portugal (Chandler 2005), Late UP Arif (North Morocco), late UP Andalusia, UP Britain and Gravettian Russia (Sunghir). In other words, mtDNA H was very possibly scattered everywhere in Europe except apparently in the north-central region.

On the other hand Early Neolithic peoples were very low in their mtDNA H frequencies, much less than some UP populations apparently and certainly less than modern levels, with just around 25% of this lineage. It is true that mtDNA expands first (but not last) in Central Europe with the arrival of Danubian Neolithic but it's also true that this expansion cannot account at all with the formation of the modern mtDNA pool in that part of Europe, very particularly because its frequency of H is very low yet. See this.

So for me mtDNA H was irregularly scattered among European hunter-gatherers, with populations ranging from near 0% (Central and North Europe) to near 100% (some parts of Iberia at the very least). Some of it was picked by early European farmers on their way to Central and Western Europe but a large part of it was actually distributed with the so-called hunter-gatherer backflow in the Chalcolithic, probably in relation to Megalithism and maybe also Bell Beaker.

MOESAN
09-07-15, 16:46
With regards to E-V13, as Maleth said, the ratio in Iberia is heavily skewed to E-M81, which undoubtedly mostly came directly from North Africa.

Plus, the E-V13 is in a Cardial setting at the entrance to Iberia. Cardial was a Neolithic east to west expansion out of the Balkans where we today find so much E-V13. It could then have moved into Iberia later on, explaining it's distribution there.

In addition to all that, E-123 has now been found in ancient Armenia, which means some ydna "E" lines most probably were involved in the Neolithic cultures of the Near East.

There is E-V13 in the Middle East today, even in interior areas which wouldn't have been much affected by trade.

Is the most logical and parsimonious explanation for the presence of E-V13 in the modern Balkans and adjoining areas really that it went from western North Africa, where it almost doesn't exist today, into Spain and then all the way east into the interior Near East? I don't think so.

This is a map of E-V13 distribution. Regardless of when it got to the Balkans, it came from the east. The flow into Italy might have been in the Neolithic, but a lot of it could also have been mediated by the Greeks from the Bronze Age on...

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E-V13.gif


I agree with Angela here, for E-V13: East Adriatic shores show few Y-E1b but great variance, even more thnan in Eastern Balkans. So an eastern mediterranean origin is more likely than a western one. I think it stays weak enough at Neolithic times before undergoing a demographic increase at bronze Age; it is stronger in Romania than stated, I think, about the 17%. I think it was present in Cucuteni-Tripolye long time ago.
I don't vote for Cucuteni Y-DNA because as remarked Holderlin, the period is not mentioned. By example, Y-J1 was surely present at low level, but Y-J2 could be arrived for the most at Bronze time, at high levels...
concerning others Y-haplos, I think Y-I2a1(b) and even Y-I2a2 could have begun to open their way into "high society" in N-E mountainous parts.
&: I still have an eye on Y-I2a2 : I believe I heard of it in hungary in Vatya culture and in earlier Vucedol (if I don't mistake); some period of Vucedol was linked by some scholars to BBs origins.

Tomenable
09-07-15, 17:00
I also think a good part of the WHG in some Europeans actually came from the east. The more pastoralist based society of the Indo-Europeans may have been a more attractive alternative for the hunter-gatherers.

This is true that a lot of HG (in this case rather EHG than WHG - EHG was quite different from WHG, because it was ANE-rich) was brought from the east by steppe people such as Yamnaya. But already before those migrations from the east, an increase of HG (WHG and SHG) could be observed in Middle and Late Neolithic. LeBrok argued that it was due to HG genes - especially their Y-DNA - being selected for. IMO that could be simply due to an increasing number of hunter-gatherers being assimilated into agricultural communities, and then exploding demographically, increasing in numbers (as farmers tend to do). If ~50 hunters learn how to farm, they will grow to ~1000 descendants in few generations.

As for HG ancestry - it seems to me that calling all of it WHG is already obsolete by now. ;)

We have learned by now, that there were at least three quite distinct types of HGs in Europe:

WHG - western (Iberian-French) hunters
SHG - central (Scandinavian-Hungarian) hunters
EHG - eastern (Karelian-Russian) hunters

There were similarities between them, but also differences. EHG, for instance, was ANE-rich.

Both SHG and EHG were also lighter-pigmented than WHG. WHG were darker, if I remember correctly.

WHG probably had more of Aurignacian ancestry (see Y-DNA of Kostenki 14, and then La-Brana).


Now, at a certain point Haak et al claim to see evidence of WHG "resurgence". It's my own belief, from when I did some research on that time period that it occurred once the farmers, now having adapted their "agricultural package" to the new environments and types of land, moved into outlying areas. I also think that it was a time of climate change and there was a movement south and west from some of the reservoir areas. When their way of life became more and more untenable some of them did enter into and were absorbed by farmer communities.

I think part of the problem here is that some posters are simplifying the ideas presented, and in the process distorting them. I don't think LeBrok ever said, and I know I certainly never said that it was impossible for hunter gatherers to learn farming. That would be silly. After all, the first farmers in the Near East were hunter-gatherers, were they not? They weren't planted here on earth fully formed by aliens. The point is that hunter-gatherers the world over adopt farming with great difficulty, slowly, and often when they have run out of alternatives.

So we agree that the resurgence of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic was due to more and more hunters gradually learning how to farm. I have never claimed that it was a swift process without difficulties.

Tomenable
09-07-15, 17:30
I think differences between WHG, SHG and EHG could be the result of their origins from three distinct Ice Age refugia. The old concept of Ice Ace Refugia was wrong when it comes to association of certain haplogroups with certain refugia (see the map below) - especially when it comes to spurious association of R1b with Iberian refugium.

But it doesn't mean that the entire concept was erroneous:

http://www.roperld.com/graphics/IceAgeRefugiaR1bR1aIHaplogroups.jpg

Association of three HG autosomal components - WHG, SHG and EHG - with those three refugia as shown in the map, seems probable. However, WHG were not R1b, but rather C1 (C-M130) and some subclades of I2.

The Balkan refugium, on the other hand, could be other subclades of I2, as well as I1.

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

I have started a new thread about this:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31412-Revisiting-the-issue-of-quot-Ice-Age-refugia-quot-in-the-context-of-WHG-SHG-EHG-ancestries

Angela
09-07-15, 18:52
This is true that a lot of HG (in this case rather EHG than WHG - EHG was quite different from WHG, because it was ANE-rich) was brought from the east by steppe people such as Yamnaya. But already before those migrations from the east, an increase of HG (WHG and SHG) could be observed in Middle and Late Neolithic. LeBrok argued that it was due to HG genes - especially their Y-DNA - being selected for. IMO that could be simply due to an increasing number of hunter-gatherers being assimilated into agricultural communities, and then exploding demographically, increasing in numbers (as farmers tend to do). If ~50 hunters learn how to farm, they will grow to ~1000 descendants in few generations.

As for HG ancestry - it seems to me that calling all of it WHG is already obsolete by now. ;)

We have learned by now, that there were at least three quite distinct types of HGs in Europe:

WHG - western (Iberian-French) hunters
SHG - central (Scandinavian-Hungarian) hunters
EHG - eastern (Karelian-Russian) hunters

There were similarities between them, but also differences. EHG, for instance, was ANE-rich.

Both SHG and EHG were also lighter-pigmented than WHG. WHG were darker, if I remember correctly.

WHG probably had more of Aurignacian ancestry (see Y-DNA of Kostenki 14, and then La-Brana).



So we agree that the resurgence of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic was due to more and more hunters gradually learning how to farm. I have never claimed that it was a swift process without difficulties.

I'm sorry, I still think you're not seeing the subtlety of the distinctions. We do not yet have any evidence, even in the Middle and Late Neolithic, of bands of hunter gatherers looking at the neighboring farmers and deciding, wow, that looks like a great idea, and adopting farming as a community. It is always in the context of their being absorbed into a farming community, and with some degree of genetic admixture, at least so far.

I never said that h-g groups were incapable of farming. If nothing else, some of them could have been enslaved and forced to farm, which may have been the case with KOI, although if we look at the example of the American West, Australia, and the San, that very rarely works. They usually pine away or sicken or run away.

When the climate changed and they had absolutely no other option other than starvation, some of them might also have gone to farming communities and been absorbed. That happened in the American West as well.

Now, as I said, that may have changed under the Indo-Europeans, because the pastoralist life style may have been a better fit for them.

Ed. The proof is that after thousands of years, the MN and LN farmers were still 75% EEF, and it may indeed be that EEF = ENF.

Greying Wanderer
10-07-15, 04:50
"Missions varied enormously in their economic and religious success. Some could not support themselves; others developed fertile fields and vineyards and huge herds of cattle. Virtually all successful religious conversion was among sedentary Indians who were easier to control and more adaptable to agriculture and herding. The few attempts to convert such warlike nomads as the Apaches and Comanches failed dismally."
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/spanish-missions-us-history

This may be the critical distinction. If nomadic or semi-nomadic HGs had various itchy-feet type traits that suited that lifestyle then sedentary HGs may have lost some or all of them as part of the process of becoming sedentary. So nomadic types recruited/enslaved to be farmers might never settle but could if they were recruited as herders whereas HGs that were already sedentary might be able to fit in as farmers.

If correct then that leads to the interesting possibility that you might see different dynamics in regions where there were pre-existing sedentary HGs.

arvistro
10-07-15, 07:52
Parts of Comb ceramics were sedentary fishers...

Angela
10-07-15, 15:54
That's a useful line of speculation, ( i.e. that there were different results in different places depending on the lifestyle of the h-g ), but from what I remember, most of the h-g groups in Europe at the time of the arrival of the farmers were already mostly sedentary hunter-fisher gatherers, although with seasonal movements to different camps. The paleolithic mammoth hunters were long gone. Someone could check it out.

Still, the fact remains that if you remove all the mumbo-jumbo and slicing and dicing, this is the logic:

IF-

Barcin = ENF who went to Europe (the farmers who went to Europe from the Near East were like Barcin, as seems to be the case)

Barcin = EEF (perhaps only a few percent difference)

MN/LN = 75% EEF

Then, after thousands of years of cohabitation the farmers only picked up 25% of their ancestry from the h-g groups who were in Europe when they arrived. Yes?

So, either the h-g groups were extraordinarily small, and the farmers were breeding like rabbits, or most of the h-g groups still couldn't adapt and fled to places like far northeastern Europe and perhaps far northwestern Europe or to mountain refuges or whatever, only to slowly trickle in and be absorbed with climate change, and later a slightly larger group were absorbed by Indo-Europeans as stockmen or whatever.

I think we also have to consider that the Mission system was the product of a much later and more sophisticated civilization and belief system. It was a concerted effort by a very small group of elite men to "Christianize" and save the souls of the natives, as well as to "pacify" the regions. (The whole problem was that it was difficult, if not impossible, to recruit enough European families to these areas as settlers.)

The Neolithic societies may not have been able to manage such a scheme, nor may they have wanted or needed to do it. They came as a folk migration with their own women, and, as I said, they seem to have bred like rabbits. I've also always found it interesting how averse a good number of these societies were to the eating of fish. (very short sighted of them from a nutritional stand, or from the point of view of soil fertility for that matter) They do it in some areas, but not in most. Perhaps they associated it with hunter-fisher-gatherers. It seems like deliberate avoidance to me, as if these people and their food were "treif" or non-kosher.

arvistro
10-07-15, 17:34
Perhaps one also cant farm because of lack of grain or know how which in that age arrived only with genes. Dont think they had student exchange :)

I would not be able to either hunt or farm if someone told me to tomorrow. OK, I could because of google, but the point stays.

Just like farmers could not hunt or survive in Northern lands before quite late because lacked the local know how.

Angela
10-07-15, 17:51
Perhaps one also cant farm because of lack of grain or know how which in that age arrived only with genes. Dont think they had student exchange :)

I would not be able to either hunt or farm if someone told me to tomorrow. OK, I could because of google, but the point stays.

Just like farmers could not hunt or survive in Northern lands before quite late because lacked the local know how.

Very true; the farmers had to perhaps learn to supplement their diet with fish, and perhaps even more importantly, they couldn't colonize there until they had modified their crops for the new terrain and climate conditions.

If the internet permanently went down, most people in modern industrialized societies would starve because most people in such societies don't have a clue how to farm or hunt. We have some "survivalist" groups here, often based in rural areas. I'd be a great recruit for everything except the hunting...I've always left that to the men, although I can cook it once they "bag" it. Blame it on all those summers on my great-uncle's farm, and my father's dedication to his vegetable garden. When he retired it became a virtual truck farm and fruit orchard, and toward the end he was planning to put in a chicken run and rabbit hutch, and was trying to convince my mother that a few pigs and a cow or two might be a good idea. She wasn't having any of it. It was quite extraordinary to see this businessman undergo this metamorphosis into subsistence farmer. :)

Maleth
10-07-15, 18:15
Necessity is the mother of all inventions and I have no doubt that farmers became farmers as there was not enough game around in drier areas so one was pushed to new ideas how to be able to provide food for the tribe. If one is getting by killing Mammoths, dear and wild pig in areas that support a good breeding ground besides for all one would hardly be bothered to think to domesticate anything (except for dogs). The catch even was preserved longer due to colder climates, unlike warmer more southern zones where grain growing would have an advantage and preserves better then meat (unless cured)

Tomenable
10-07-15, 22:40
It seems that the Romani people are descended from hunter-gatherers, but those of India:

"The Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup H1a1a-M82 Reveals the Likely Indian Origin of the European Romani Populations":

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048477


(...) In order to ascertain the closest population group among northwestern Indians, we redrew the network of Roma haplotypes exclusively within the northwestern Indian variation (Fig. 3). It is highly revealing that the closest or matching haplotypes with the Roma haplotypes were found in scheduled caste and scheduled tribe populations, while the middle and upper caste haplotypes were more distant to the Roma haplotypes (Fig. 3). Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes are the endogamous groups in India that are given a special status by the Government of India to uplift their social status (for more details, refer [47]). Historically, the assimilation of so-called tribals into the caste system generally did little to ameliorate the socio-economic barriers or enhance the marriageability of former outcastes to members of the middle or high castes. However their language and means of subsistence were often affected, e.g. assimilation to an Indo-Aryan language and the shift from foraging, hunting and fishing to a more sedentary existence. Not surprisingly, the genetic differences between scheduled tribes and scheduled castes are not found to be substantial [47]. On the basis of our findings, it is therefore most parsimonious to conclude that the genealogically closest patrilineal ancestors of the Roma were among the ancestors of the present scheduled tribes and scheduled caste populations of northwestern India. The genetic data analysed here for the first time provide strong population genetic support for the linguistic based identification of the ancestral Roma with the presumed aboriginal Doma of northwestern India and the Gangetic plain.

(...)

The name by which Roma designate themselves is Rroma (singular Rrom), whereby the double rr in Romani orthography represents a uvular ‘r’ [R] as opposed to an apical ‘r’ [r]. The autonym Rroma is held to be cognate with Doma, a collective term for the ancient aboriginal populations of the Indian subcontinent. Many Doma remained outcastes or tribals, whereas some were assimilated into the lower strata of the caste system by the Indo-European speaking Indians. (...)

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit)

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

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

Greying Wanderer
10-07-15, 22:45
Parts of Comb ceramics were sedentary fishers...

Yes. I think sedentary wetlands HGs around the Baltic may be significant here (and maybe the same thing much earlier around the Black Sea).

Greying Wanderer
10-07-15, 23:03
Then, after thousands of years of cohabitation the farmers only picked up 25% of their ancestry from the h-g groups who were in Europe when they arrived. Yes?

I think that's the general pattern. The farmers spread everywhere they could farm and the HGs retreated to wherever was left with very little mixing until the borders were fixed.

What mixing there was after that point possibly being linked to how pastoral an area was i.e. more HG recruits in areas best suited to herding and less in areas best suited to crops.

I think that bit seems clear.

The question is if there was a resurgence in HG dna after this how it came about.

1. As above maybe the farmers recruited more HGs from the swamps/mountains to herd for them - perhaps as part of a climate related switch away from crops.

2. Some HGs in the periphery regions adapting e.g. the Ertobolle culture, leading to HGs becoming hybrid HG-farmers and a population resurgence that way.

3. A variation on option (1) where there is also no direct HG resurgence but a farmer population in a farmer/HG border region with a higher percentage of HG than usual having a population expansion for some reason.

or a bit of all three or something else.

MOESAN
11-07-16, 00:04
I'm sorry, I still think you're not seeing the subtlety of the distinctions. We do not yet have any evidence, even in the Middle and Late Neolithic, of bands of hunter gatherers looking at the neighboring farmers and deciding, wow, that looks like a great idea, and adopting farming as a community. It is always in the context of their being absorbed into a farming community, and with some degree of genetic admixture, at least so far.

I never said that h-g groups were incapable of farming. If nothing else, some of them could have been enslaved and forced to farm, which may have been the case with KOI, although if we look at the example of the American West, Australia, and the San, that very rarely works. They usually pine away or sicken or run away.

When the climate changed and they had absolutely no other option other than starvation, some of them might also have gone to farming communities and been absorbed. That happened in the American West as well.

Now, as I said, that may have changed under the Indo-Europeans, because the pastoralist life style may have been a better fit for them.

Ed. The proof is that after thousands of years, the MN and LN farmers were still 75% EEF, and it may indeed be that EEF = ENF.

I rather agree, spite based upon little. By instance Blatterhöhle fishers-gatherers compared to same place agricultors OF THE SAME TIME show only 7/7 mtU5 (U5b for the deppest studied) when peasants show a mix of 5/8 H + 2/8 U5b + 1J (3H5, 1H1, 1H11, so not occidental mt-H as a whole).
It's true females/males imput in mixtures are not always balanced but it's a beginning...

Hauteville
11-07-16, 09:25
I2a could be a good option.

F117stealth
10-08-16, 23:55
From where do you think we got in that region (present times) this high concentration of I2a2?

LeBrok
13-05-17, 20:59
Here are first results from Cucuteni-Trypillia:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf


5736
3931-3640 calBCE [3705-3640 calBCE (4890±30 BP, Beta-432808); 3931-3670 calBCE (4985±30 BP, OxA-25991)]
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H5a
G2a2b2a


5735
3911-3659 calBCE (4976±33 BP, OxA-26203)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
T2b
G2a2b2a


5647
3758-3636 calBCE (4888±32 BP, OxA-26204)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
HV
G2a


5750
4000-3600 BCE
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
U8b1b
E


5228
3619-2936 calBCE (4550±90 BP, Ki-13388)
Trypillia_outlier
Trypillia_outlier
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H1b
G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a1




Our communal and main guess wasn't right so far. Second guess was right. Full of G2a, and even one E. All typical farmers from Near East. Not even one R1b or R1a. However it is just from one location of vast territory, a cave and small sample base.

Angela
13-05-17, 21:45
Here are first results from Cucuteni-Trypillia



5736
3931-3640 calBCE [3705-3640 calBCE (4890±30 BP, Beta-432808); 3931-3670 calBCE (4985±30 BP, OxA-25991)]
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H5a
G2a2b2a


5735
3911-3659 calBCE (4976±33 BP, OxA-26203)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
T2b
G2a2b2a


5647
3758-3636 calBCE (4888±32 BP, OxA-26204)
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
HV
G2a


5750
4000-3600 BCE
Trypillia
Trypillia
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
U8b1b
E


5228
3619-2936 calBCE (4550±90 BP, Ki-13388)
Trypillia_outlier
Trypillia_outlier
..
Verteba Cave
..
Ukraine
48.47
25.53
M
H1b
G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a1




Our communal and main guess wasn't right so far. Second guess was right. Full of G2a, and even one E. All typical farmers from Near East. Not even one R1b or R1a. However it is just from one location of vast territory, a cave and small sample base.

The communal prediction for Globular was also incorrect, wasn't it? Vucedol too.

LeBrok
13-05-17, 22:01
The communal prediction for Globular was also incorrect, wasn't it? Vucedol too.I don't remember this one. The second one I started was about Maykop, and jury is still in.

Anyway, it is so weird that contemporary neighboring culture of also farmers is exclusively I2a! Either the small sample bias is very strong here, or these two cultures were strongly conservative, ethno-patriotic. ;) Considering the fact that Ukrainian samples of Cucuteni and Globular lived close by, though few hundred years apart.

There is of course possible population collapse and bottlenecking effect for farmers of Late Neolithic to explain that.


Here is Globular Amphora:


2899-2706 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
M
J1c3
I2a2a1b


2890-2694 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
M
T2b
I2a2a1b2


2900-2709 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
F
J1c
..


2870-2575 calBCE (4120±30 BP, Beta-430712)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
U5b2b1
I2a2


3335-3020 calBCE (4460±30 BP, Beta-430713)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
W5
I2a2


3100-2900 BCE (mother to directly dated I2407: 3095-2915 calBCE (4390±30 BP, Beta-430714)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
F
H28
..


3400-2800 BCE
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
F
U5b1d1
..


3100-2900 BCE (father to directly dated I2407: 3095-2915 calBCE (4390±30 BP, Beta-430714)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
H1b
I2


3400-2800 BCE
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
K1b1a1
I2a2a1b

Angela
13-05-17, 23:00
I don't remember this one. The second one I started was about Maykop, and jury is still in.

Anyway, it is so weird that contemporary neighboring culture of also farmers is exclusively I2a! Either the small sample bias is very strong here, or these two cultures were strongly conservative, ethno-patriotic. ;) Considering the fact that Ukrainian samples of Cucuteni and Globular lived close by, though few hundred years apart.

There is of course possible population collapse and bottlenecking effect for farmers of Late Neolithic to explain that.


Here is Globular Amphora:


2899-2706 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
M
J1c3
I2a2a1b


2890-2694 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
M
T2b
I2a2a1b2


2900-2709 calBCE
Globular_Amphora_Ukraine
Globular_Amphora
..
Ilyatka
..
Ukraine
49.56
27.69
F
J1c
..


2870-2575 calBCE (4120±30 BP, Beta-430712)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
U5b2b1
I2a2


3335-3020 calBCE (4460±30 BP, Beta-430713)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
W5
I2a2


3100-2900 BCE (mother to directly dated I2407: 3095-2915 calBCE (4390±30 BP, Beta-430714)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
F
H28
..


3400-2800 BCE
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
F
U5b1d1
..


3100-2900 BCE (father to directly dated I2407: 3095-2915 calBCE (4390±30 BP, Beta-430714)
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
H1b
I2


3400-2800 BCE
Globular_Amphora_Poland
Globular_Amphora
..
Kierzkowo
..
Poland
52.85
17.88
M
K1b1a1
I2a2a1b


I just remember a lot of talk about R1 and how they were heavily steppe, whereas they're like Iberian Neolithic, about 25% WHG picked up in the Middle Neolithic.

Maybe that's the difference between the two cultures: Globular Amphora was "fathered" by a group that included an absorbed hunter- gatherer male and then there were bottlenecks.

Maciamo
14-05-17, 22:24
What's interesting is that the Trypillian genomes tested are not pure EEF, but have substantial levels of WHG, EHG and Steppe (about 25% in total), and all samples possess all three admixtures in addition to EEF. The levels are quite similar to those of the Bronze Age Balkans. One Trypillian individual (I1927) has over 20% of Steppe admixture, and only just above 50% of EEF.

The Trypillian genomes greatly contrasts with Globular Amphora, which have almost only WHG (20-25%) and EEF (75-80%).

http://www.eupedia.com/images/Copper-Bronze_admixtures_Mathieson-2017.png

We only have a few sample from each culture, and it turned out that all the Trypillian Y-DNA was EEF (G2a and E1b1b) ad all the Globular Amphora Y-DNA was WHG (I2), but that is surely just a coincidence. The autosomal DNA shows that Trypillian people must have possessed also I2, R1a and R1b lineages. You just can't draw conclusions on Y-DNA frequencies based on five samples. It's actually far safer to do so based on autosomal DNA.

Also noteworthy, Trypillian genomes had more WHG than EHG or Steppe, while Chalcolthic Balkans genomes had substantial EHG but hardly any WHG or Steppe (except for I2181 and ANI163, who were recent Steppe invaders. Unfortunately ANI163's Y-DNA and mtDNA aren't mentioned, but I2181 belongs to Y-haplogroup R, although the coverage was too low to determine anything deeper).

LeBrok
15-05-17, 01:04
I'm yet to read this paper, so I was only wondering if these G2a farmers had Yamnaya mix, and they did have. Thanks for finding it out Maciamo.
In this case, it is just a matter of time finding Steppe and WHG haplogroups in North Cucuteni. BA Balkans is quite similar for first 7 samples to Cucuteni but 4 last ones are way richer in steppe. I wonder if they come from different locations.
I'll try to find out.

Angela
15-05-17, 03:28
The two Admixture runs are very strange for some of the Balkan groups studied, depending on the k. It has to be investigated more thoroughly, especially when the samples are released. For some of them is it "steppe" or just CHG like ancestry added to local hg? For others is it just additonal WHG and/or EHG?

For C/T, I think some of these are up in the forest steppe.

LeBrok
15-05-17, 06:25
The two Admixture runs are very strange for some of the Balkan groups studied, depending on the k. It has to be investigated more thoroughly, especially when the samples are released. For some of them is it "steppe" or just CHG like ancestry added to local hg? For others is it just additonal WHG and/or EHG?

For C/T, I think some of these are up in the forest steppe.
It got to be the way they defined EHG here. Before that we didn't hear about EHG in Balkans. Perhaps we have enough ancient samples for scientists to coin common admixtures to measure samples. I don't mind if there is EHG in balkan hunter gatherers, I just don't want to change my mind set with every paper.

LeBrok
15-05-17, 06:27
I'm yet to read this paper, so I was only wondering if these G2a farmers had Yamnaya mix, and they did have. Thanks for finding it out Maciamo.
In this case, it is just a matter of time finding Steppe and WHG haplogroups in North Cucuteni. BA Balkans is quite similar for first 7 samples to Cucuteni but 4 last ones are way richer in steppe. I wonder if they come from different locations.
I'll try to find out.
Ok, the samples of BA Balkans which are more like Cucuteni are from Early BA from Bulgaria. The samples with more steppe are from Late Neolithic from Croatia.

Maciamo
15-05-17, 08:37
Ok, the samples of BA Balkans which are more like Cucuteni are from Early BA from Bulgaria. The samples with more steppe are from Late Neolithic from Croatia.

This makes complete sense. Old Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures like Cucuteni-Trypillian and Varna in the eastern Carpathians and Balkans were densely populated and acted as bulwark against Steppe invasions. Therefore Steppe admixture levels in those regions are lower. EHG, WHG and Steppe admixtures in those regions probably progressed slowly over time by intermarriages with neighbouring HG and Steppe pastoralist populations.

The samples from Croatia could be seen as part of the large-scale migration from the Pontic Steppe to the Hungarian Plain, which was an ideal environment for cattle pastoralists and horse riders. I have explained in my R1b history, in agreement with what David Anthony wrote, that the early Steppe incursions into the Balkans were raiding and pillaging expeditions that caused the progressive decline of Old Europe, but didn't leave any major Steppe settlements. Steppe invaders only took over politically and set themselves up as the new rulers in local communities, so that Steppe lineages would principally show up in elite burials like in Varna.

The real Steppe migrations with their families, carts and herds followed the Danube until Hungary and northeast Croatia, then moved into Germany, Bohemia and western Poland to found the Unetice culture. Some of those who arrived early eventually continued west beyond Germany, reaching France and Britain by 2300 BCE, when Unetice started around Germany.

Here is one relevant passage from my R1b page (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Old_Europe).

"The expansion of R1b people into Old Europe was slower, but proved inevitable. In 2800 BCE, by the time the Corded Ware had already reached Scandinavia, the Bronze Age R1b cultures had barely moved into the Pannonian Steppe. They established major settlements in the Great Hungarian Plain, the most similar habitat to their ancestral Pontic Steppes. Around 2500 BCE, the western branch of Indo-European R1b were poised for their next major expansion into modern Germany and Western Europe."


However the three Bronze Age Croatian individuals tested date from 1700 to 900 BCE, which is long after the Yamna-descended tribes passed through the Hungarian plain. Nevertheless some seem to have made their way south until southern Croatia (Veliki Vanik) and may have been the long lost tribe of the Illyrians. This is the first evidence we have of Indo-European lineages in Illyria prior to the Slavic migrations that replaced most of the male lineages by I2a-Din and R1a lineages. Unfortunately, only one of the three BA Croatian samples was male, so there is only one Y-DNA sample and it belongs to J2b2a-L283. It's possible that a later Steppe migration that the one that founded Unetice brought J2b2a to the Dinaric Alps. Anyway these three individuals were undeniably Steppe-admixed and the J2b guy possessed a typical Steppe mtDNA (I1a1) also found in Unetice.


Note that the sample with the highest Steppe admixture in the Balkans (I2163) is from Middle-Late Bronze Age Bulgaria (c. 1700 BCE) and belongs to R1a-S224. It is the only MLBA individual tested and he is contemporary to the Srubna culture, where he surely originated. This confirms that that Srubna was a predominantly R1a culture, as opposed to the earlier R1b-dominant Yamna culture and probably also Catacomb culture.


NB: It's just a detail, but the samples tested are from the Trypillian culture, not Cucuteni. Although they formed the same culture, Cucuteni normally refers to the part in NE Romania and Moldova, while Tripolye/Trypillia is the Ukrainian part.

Alan
15-05-17, 12:17
It got to be the way they defined EHG here. Before that we didn't hear about EHG in Balkans. Perhaps we have enough ancient samples for scientists to coin common admixtures to measure samples. I don't mind if there is EHG in balkan hunter gatherers, I just don't want to change my mind set with every paper.

I actually like these turnovers :D

Angela
15-05-17, 13:44
Maciamo, the elite burial in Varna is ydna CT. The R1b boy is buried with no grave goods.

Angela
15-05-17, 14:11
It got to be the way they defined EHG here. Before that we didn't hear about EHG in Balkans. Perhaps we have enough ancient samples for scientists to coin common admixtures to measure samples. I don't mind if there is EHG in balkan hunter gatherers, I just don't want to change my mind set with every paper.

The WHG and EHG seem to have been in different niches, but then moved around, and at contact points there was some blending. The relative percentages varied over time.

In the Ukraine, for example, there was a change from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic:
"However, our larger sample shows the opposite – specifically that ANE ancestry decreases and WHG ancestry increases – as shown by the statistics D(Mbuti, X, Ukraine_Mesolithic, 218 Ukraine_Neolithic), which is Z=-4.9 when X is the Mal’ta 1 individual and Z=9.1 for 219 X=WHG (Supplementary Data Table 2)."

Maciamo
15-05-17, 15:07
Maciamo, the elite burial in Varna is ydna CT. The R1b boy is buried with no grave goods.

I wasn't referring to Chalcolithic Bulgaria. Those samples are too old (c. 4500 BCE for the R1b and c. 4350 BCE for the CT) to have anything to do with Steppe invasions. That R1b is an old Mesolithic L754 (two mutations prior to P297 and three before M269) related to Iron Gates or Dnieper Donets, not to Yamna.

LeBrok
15-05-17, 17:22
This makes complete sense. Old Neolithic/Chalcolithic cultures like Cucuteni-Trypillian and Varna in the eastern Carpathians and Balkans were densely populated and acted as bulwark against Steppe invasions. Therefore Steppe admixture levels in those regions are lower. EHG, WHG and Steppe admixtures in those regions probably progressed slowly over time by intermarriages with neighbouring HG and Steppe pastoralist populations.

The samples from Croatia could be seen as part of the large-scale migration from the Pontic Steppe to the Hungarian Plain, which was an ideal environment for cattle pastoralists and horse riders. I have explained in my R1b history, in agreement with what David Anthony wrote, that the early Steppe incursions into the Balkans were raiding and pillaging expeditions that caused the progressive decline of Old Europe, but didn't leave any major Steppe settlements. Steppe invaders only took over politically and set themselves up as the new rulers in local communities, so that Steppe lineages would principally show up in elite burials like in Varna.
I think, the first BA population of Bulgaria, in big numbers, were the ones of Cucuteni mix pushed south and west by big steppe migration.



However the three Bronze Age Croatian individuals tested date from 1700 to 900 BCE, which is long after the Yamna-descended tribes passed through the Hungarian plain. Nevertheless some seem to have made their way south until southern Croatia (Veliki Vanik) and may have been the long lost tribe of the Illyrians. This is the first evidence we have of Indo-European lineages in Illyria prior to the Slavic migrations that replaced most of the male lineages by I2a-Din and R1a lineages. Unfortunately, only one of the three BA Croatian samples was male, so there is only one Y-DNA sample and it belongs to J2b2a-L283. It's possible that a later Steppe migration that the one that founded Unetice brought J2b2a to the Dinaric Alps. Anyway these three individuals were undeniably Steppe-admixed and the J2b guy possessed a typical Steppe mtDNA (I1a1) also found in Unetice.
This is interesting. Is it possible that these guys started migration in Central/North Europe and not in the steppe? From Tumulus culture and alike. Most of the movement could have been right after BA collapse around 1,200.
Illyrians did come to my mind.


Note that the sample with the highest Steppe admixture in the Balkans (I2163) is from Middle-Late Bronze Age Bulgaria (c. 1700 BCE) and belongs to R1a-S224. It is the only MLBA individual tested and he is contemporary to the Srubna culture, where he surely originated. This confirms that that Srubna was a predominantly R1a culture, as opposed to the earlier R1b-dominant Yamna culture and probably also Catacomb culture.
Looks more Thracians in this case, or similar migration, this time more from NE Europe. Though I think Thracians most likely happened after BA collapse.


[/QUOTE]NB: It's just a detail, but the samples tested are from the Trypillian culture, not Cucuteni. Although they formed the same culture, Cucuteni normally refers to the part in NE Romania and Moldova, while Tripolye/Trypillia is the Ukrainian part.[/QUOTE]That's how I in brief referred to the whole culture. Obviously Trypillia part had bigger contact with the steppe than southern Cucuteni.

LeBrok
15-05-17, 17:24
I actually like these turnovers :DWe need more of standardize measure units in population genetics, less relativity. Great for people who don't have time to reread and relearn, like me.

Angela
15-05-17, 21:39
Gentlemen, take a look at Supp. Table 2. I discuss it below, but you should take a look yourselves;
it's short, and shows their conclusions based on formal stats.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34052-The-genomic-history-of-southeastern-Europe-Mathiesen-et-al/page10?p=508673#post508673

Angela
15-05-17, 21:57
I wasn't referring to Chalcolithic Bulgaria. Those samples are too old (c. 4500 BCE for the R1b and c. 4350 BCE for the CT) to have anything to do with Steppe invasions. That R1b is an old Mesolithic L754 (two mutations prior to P297 and three before M269) related to Iron Gates or Dnieper Donets, not to Yamna.Perhaps I misunderstood this?

" so that Steppe lineages would principally show up in elite burials like in Varna. "

As I said, the elite burial in Varna has nothing to do with Steppe,

Angela
15-05-17, 23:15
Just for general information...

I haven't checked this out for myself yet. It's from GD at anthrogenica:

"Khvalynsk rather dates to 4300-3800 BC, which is the steppe Eneolithic, whilst Varna I dates to 4700 - 4500 BC. (PALEOECOLOGY, SUBSISTENCE, AND 14C CHRONOLOGY OF THE EURASIAN CASPIAN STEPPE BRONZE AGE. N I Shishlina). The reference given in the Supp Data are too broad and too old because they have not corrected for the reservoir effect as Shishilina does, and as HIgham et al did for Varna."

Ed. The context was that perhaps "steppe" appears in Varna before it appears in Khvalynsk.

Alan
16-05-17, 01:48
We need more of standardize measure units in population genetics, less relativity. Great for people who don't have time to reread and relearn, like me.

You are right, I understand your point. But we have to understand the scientists it's not like they want to change but they have to because with new samples they have better understanding of the bigger picture.

Alan
16-05-17, 01:53
Gentlemen, take a look at Supp. Table 2. I discuss it below, but you should take a look yourselves;
it's short, and shows their conclusions based on formal stats.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34052-The-genomic-history-of-southeastern-Europe-Mathiesen-et-al/page10?p=508673#post508673


There is something telling me, "maybe there is a reason why ftDNA labeled a clearly CHG type component as Iron Age Invaders".

Maybe/likely there is a reason why the scientists collectively start to call Yamnaya Late PIE. So we who were theorizing the Steppes as secondary homeland to Indo Europeans could be correct afterall.

Alan
16-05-17, 02:14
Just for general information...

I haven't checked this out for myself yet. It's from GD at anthrogenica:

"Khvalynsk rather dates to 4300-3800 BC, which is the steppe Eneolithic, whilst Varna I dates to 4700 - 4500 BC. (PALEOECOLOGY, SUBSISTENCE, AND 14C CHRONOLOGY OF THE EURASIAN CASPIAN STEPPE BRONZE AGE. N I Shishlina). The reference given in the Supp Data are too broad and too old because they have not corrected for the reservoir effect as Shishilina does, and as HIgham et al did for Varna."

Ed. The context was that perhaps "steppe" appears in Varna before it appears in Khvalynsk.

sooooo maybe. CHG to Balkan => mixing with the local H&G who seem to have allot of R1a/R1b lineages=> new local Balkan H&G/CHG and Anatolian_Neo admixed population => to the Steppes, with founder effect where only few lineages reach the region?

Thats also a interesting theory.

Angela
16-05-17, 04:06
sooooo maybe. CHG to Balkan => mixing with the local H&G who seem to have allot of R1a/R1b lineages=> new local Balkan H&G/CHG and Anatolian_Neo admixed population => to the Steppes, with founder effect where only few lineages reach the region?

Thats also a interesting theory.

I wondered about that too, but I thought maybe it was too far-fetched. :) We don't have that many samples yet after all. Although, who knows, we're getting nothing but surprises lately. :)

LeBrok
16-05-17, 04:41
I wondered about that too, but I thought maybe it was too far-fetched. :) We don't have that many samples yet after all. Although, who knows, we're getting nothing but surprises lately. :)
I guess you "ignored" my Hungarian bronze age model I did few months ago..., maybe I made it but didn't post it. :)
Here it is reposted:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34052-The-genomic-history-of-southeastern-Europe-Mathiesen-et-al/page10?p=508709&viewfull=1#post508709

Angela
16-05-17, 16:00
I guess you "ignored" my Hungarian bronze age model I did few months ago..., maybe I made it but didn't post it. :)
Here it is reposted:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34052-The-genomic-history-of-southeastern-Europe-Mathiesen-et-al/page10?p=508709&viewfull=1#post508709

Never, my dear LeBrok.

ABC123
06-09-17, 19:03
But what was the main mtDNA haplogroup?

"Haplogroup R0 has been found in around 55% of osteological remains belonging to the Eneolithic Trypillia culture."

LeBrok
08-09-17, 18:47
But what was the main mtDNA haplogroup?

"Haplogroup R0 has been found in around 55% of osteological remains belonging to the Eneolithic Trypillia culture."
Check post 65:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31334-What-is-the-main-haplogroup-of-Cucuteni-Trypillian-(Tripolye)-culture/page3?p=508470&viewfull=1#post508470

MOESAN
09-09-17, 14:40
i red somewhere CTC at the anthropological types level shew an introgression of robust "neolithic" (so little!) Ukrainian females of neighbouring cultures; here again a genders unbalanced mixture! (maybe the opposite unbalanced mixture for LN cultures of N-E Hungary and S Poland???)

ABC123
10-09-17, 08:29
Check post 65:

Thank you! Very interesting. I like this forum. :)