PDA

View Full Version : Neolithic western Carpathian Basin - 356 pages



Sile
29-06-15, 09:57
A big paper - 356 pages from june 2015

http://ubm.opus.hbz-nrw.de/volltexte/2015/4075/pdf/doc.pdf



This dissertation focuses on the Neolithic western Carpathian Basin

(including western Hungary, also called as Transdanubia),andinvestigates

its population history with molecular genetic methods.

Fire Haired14
29-06-15, 12:11
There's a bunch more Y DNA and mtDNA. Early Neolithic J2, E1b-M78, and I1 were found, along with typical G2a, F*(probably H or T), and I2. Arguable the biggest Y DNA find is R1b that predates Bell Beaker in Central Europe.

Fire Haired14
29-06-15, 12:33
K8 results for selected Allentoft et al. genomes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/k8-results-for-selected-allentoft-et-al.html)

Here the Results (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P6HDmiPYMGbXEchhBuks4PSykLKbnj7EfHM9XjmIT40/edit?usp=sharing).

Here's a spreadsheet of the Allentoft Samples.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit

From Sweden/Estonia/Germany Corded Ware looks the same. Sintashta scores like Corded Ware, while Andronovo looks like it has more "Steppe".

Both Hungarians come from the Vatya culture but score very differently. One is very low in ANE and WHG and very high in ENF, and one is somewhat low in ANE and very high in WHG(higher than Balts).

The Remedello North Italian looks like Modern Sardinians. He's our best proxy for Pre-ANE Italians(at least North).

Sile
29-06-15, 13:34
There's a bunch more Y DNA and mtDNA. Early Neolithic J2, E1b-M78, and I1 were found, along with typical G2a, F*(probably H or T), and I2. Arguable the biggest Y DNA find is R1b that predates Bell Beaker in Central Europe.

Where did you find that F* is H or T

F3 was the old name for H1b ( current name ), was F3 also F* ?
H1b1 was , IIRC one of the recent early iron age Thracians

The 3 x G2a in the carpathian mountains seems to fit again with a very early migration of G2a into Europe

bicicleur
29-06-15, 13:44
looks like a good review
when I have a little time I will ...

so many new data coming in these days
which data are incorporated in this study? are Haak et al en Allentoft et al allready in?

Tomenable
29-06-15, 15:13
which data are incorporated in this study? are Haak et al en Allentoft et al allready in?

Haak 2015 - yes, but Allentoft 2015 - no.


Arguable the biggest Y DNA find is R1b that predates Bell Beaker in Central Europe.

Where can you see this?

Angela
29-06-15, 19:23
K8 results for selected Allentoft et al. genomes (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/06/k8-results-for-selected-allentoft-et-al.html)

Here the Results (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1P6HDmiPYMGbXEchhBuks4PSykLKbnj7EfHM9XjmIT40/edit?usp=sharing).

Here's a spreadsheet of the Allentoft Samples.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HuNPykGuq2PbHkUOL5dCiwrveIy-OGO2qOklwfsayW8/edit

From Sweden/Estonia/Germany Corded Ware looks the same. Sintashta scores like Corded Ware, while Andronovo looks like it has more "Steppe".

Both Hungarians come from the Vatya culture but score very differently. One is very low in ANE and WHG and very high in ENF, and one is somewhat low in ANE and very high in WHG(higher than Balts).

The Remedello North Italian looks like Modern Sardinians. He's our best proxy for Pre-ANE Italians(at least North).

Very diligent and painstaking work as usual, Fire-Haired.

However, as to the results, I have no idea what the "Near Eastern" represents.

If we're trying to figure out the major population flows that formed Europeans, we should be using ancient samples. The Near Eastern component should either be Barcin, the farmer from ancient Anatolia, or, if that isn't high quality enough, Stuttgart, since that's almost the same, and then there would be a HG component represented by a Mesolithic European and ANE represented by Mal'ta,or maybe, since that's so old, by the Karelian EHG.

This just confuses the issue. If what's aimed for by "Near Eastern" is Basal Eurasian, we have no idea what that is yet since we don't have a sample.

LeBrok
29-06-15, 20:53
Two threads merged.

Angela
29-06-15, 21:28
I'm reposting this from something I put in the E-V13 related threads:

There's now confirmed E1b1b1a1(2) in Neolithic Europe, so that part of the debate is over. There's also J2.

Ed. Sorry, I didn't add that one is M78, and one may already be E-V13.

The cultures are Lengyel and Sopot.The date is 4780-4700 BC.

The rest are G2a, F*, I2a1, J2, and C.

R1b and I2a2 don't show up until the Bronze Age.


The J2 was from 4990-4850 BC. One was found in Lengyel and one in Sopot culture.

I'd love to say that it was late Neolithic because then I'd have come in under the wire by saying J2 could have come in during the Late Neolithic, but I've seen Lengyel described as a middle/late Neolithic culture. Kudos to Maciamo and LeBrok for holding out for a Neolithic entry of J2 into Europe.

This puts that Bronze Age J2 and what seemed like his anomalous appearance in perspective. So much for he wandered up from Bronze Age Anatolia via the Aegean. The J2 could have been present there in Europe all along.

There is also yDna "C" of uncertain origin...

The question remaining is were J2 and E-M78, for example, present in the earliest Neolithic in the southern most regions of Europe, and just didn't move north until later, or were they a slightly different Neolithic population that entered even southern Europe slightly later than G2a?

This is what the author has to say:
"The three new NRY, J, C, and Eb1b1a signalize new population elements in the Sopot community, which subsisted during and after the Lengyel period of the region as well."

"It's difficult to define the origin of these new components..."

"The question is, why this group cannot be seen in the Early Neolithic of Transdanubia? Had it been there and remained undetected by chance? Alternatively, did J arrive with the first farmers and halted in southern Europe for a while (~1000 years) from where it dispersed in the Sopot period?"

To be continued:)

Sile
29-06-15, 21:42
Where can you see this?

This only indicates that R1b did not exclusively create BB ( as many many people thought ) if they are already in the area with the many varied LBK markers ( I1, I2, G2, T1, H1 etc )

Salmon
29-06-15, 22:16
Did I get this right?

The early neolithic peoples in this area were G, F, and I. J, C, and E1b1b moved in for a while around 5000-3000 BC.

32 remains from 7 sites that died between 5700 BC and 3900 BC were excavated and tested.

Sile
29-06-15, 22:22
I'm reposting this from something I put in the E-V13 related threads:

There's now confirmed E1b1b1a1(2) in Neolithic Europe, so that part of the debate is over. There's also J2.

Ed. Sorry, I didn't add that one is M78, and one may already be E-V13.

The cultures are Lengyel and Sopot.The date is 4780-4700 BC.

The rest are G2a, F*, I2a1, J2, and C.

R1b and I2a2 don't show up until the Bronze Age.


The J2 was from 4990-4850 BC. One was found in Lengyel and one in Sopot culture.

I'd love to say that it was late Neolithic because then I'd have come in under the wire by saying J2 could have come in during the Late Neolithic, but I've seen Lengyel described as a middle/late Neolithic culture. Kudos to Maciamo and LeBrok for holding out for a Neolithic entry of J2 into Europe.

This puts that Bronze Age J2 and what seemed like his anomalous appearance in perspective. So much for he wandered up from Bronze Age Anatolia via the Aegean. The J2 could have been present there in Europe all along.

There is also yDna "C" of uncertain origin...

The question remaining is were J2 and E-M78, for example, present in the earliest Neolithic in the southern most regions of Europe, and just didn't move north until later, or were they a slightly different Neolithic population that entered even southern Europe slightly later than G2a?

This is what the author has to say:
"The three new NRY, J, C, and Eb1b1a signalize new population elements in the Sopot community, which subsisted during and after the Lengyel period of the region as well."

"It's difficult to define the origin of these new components..."

"The question is, why this group cannot be seen in the Early Neolithic of Transdanubia? Had it been there and remained undetected by chance? Alternatively, did J arrive with the first farmers and halted in southern Europe for a while (~1000 years) from where it dispersed in the Sopot period?"

To be continued:)

the F* of lengyel and other areas

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg.html)

whats left ?................T and L ydna haplogroups

Fluffy
29-06-15, 22:54
[QUOTE=Salmon;461198]Did I get this right?

The early neolithic peoples in this area were G, F, and I. J, C, and E1b1b moved in for a while around 5000

Who the hell said that?

Fluffy
29-06-15, 22:55
[QUOTE=Fluffy;461200][QUOTE=Salmon;461198]Did I get this right?

The early neolithic peoples in this area were G, F, and I. J, C, and E1b1b moved in for a while around 5000

Who the hell said that?

Salmon
29-06-15, 22:57
[QUOTE=Fluffy;461200][QUOTE=Salmon;461198]Did I get this right?

The early neolithic peoples in this area were G, F, and I. J, C, and E1b1b moved in for a while around 5000

Who the hell said that?

It's in the paper, summary, analysis.

Page 138
Page 176

Fluffy
29-06-15, 23:02
[QUOTE=Fluffy;461202][QUOTE=Fluffy;461200]

It's in the paper, summary, analysis.

Page 138
Page 176

Thanks! I'll look it up.

Alan
30-06-15, 05:02
nevermind..

Trojet
30-06-15, 05:27
It doesn't do us any good without knowing which J2 clade those samples are (J2a or J2b), as these two J2 clades clearly show different distribution patterns across SE Europe. The likeliest candidate is J2b, as this haplogroup has pretty similar distribution patterns as E-V13. Its ashame that they didn't test downstream of J-M172 and not leave us guessing.

Vukodav
30-06-15, 09:59
So those HGs. were already present during the Neolitich age. This means that Balkan people have very little Indo European blood (R1b+R1a) and the Bosniaks are mostly Mesolitich I2 natives. Nothing to do with Slavs and other savages from the North.

Sile
30-06-15, 10:05
It doesn't do us any good without knowing which J2 clade those samples are (J2a or J2b), as these two J2 clades clearly show different distribution patterns across SE Europe. The likeliest candidate is J2b, as this haplogroup has pretty similar distribution patterns as E-V13. Its ashame that they didn't test downstream of J-M172 and not leave us guessing.

two have some sublineage of J2b-L283 (http://tree.j2-m172.info/?Hg=J2b1a1). YFull estimates L283 to have diversified 9800 ybp (http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L283/)

Sile
30-06-15, 10:06
the F* of lengyel

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg.html)

whats left ?................T and L ydna haplogroups

Tolm3 is H1-M69

Trojet
30-06-15, 10:34
Sile, that's what most "experts" think that they are J2b2 (J2b-L283), but i dont think they were tested downstream of J-M172 which is just J2. J2b2 seems the likeliest candidate, but I wouldn't make that conclusion just yet, unless a paper comes out later with more specific downstream SNPs of J-M172.

Trojet
30-06-15, 10:45
Vudokav, I2a does have a Mesolithic age, but the I2a clade that has been found in the Balkans is called I2a-cts10228 "dinaric", which I think is no older than 2500 years, and it is thought to have originated somewhere in the Moldova region. How it got to the Balkans, is anyones guess at this point...unless it mutated in the Balkans then that's a different story.

Maleth
30-06-15, 11:18
So those HGs. were already present during the Neolitich age. This means that Balkan people have very little Indo European blood (R1b+R1a) and the Bosniaks are mostly Mesolitich I2 natives. Nothing to do with Slavs and other savages from the North.

Vukodav, I dont think savagery can be claimed to any particular group as when our present world (say) in the last say 500 years will be analised (example) in 2000 years from now we would be termed as going through one of the worse periods of savagery in world history on all 5 continents, with ethnic cleansing, weapons of mass destruction, apartheids, subtle and obvious racial hatred + wars with the loss of millions of humans. And we will not be giving them much trouble to dig up the facts as they are well documented for them already

Angela
30-06-15, 14:58
So those HGs. were already present during the Neolitich age. This means that Balkan people have very little Indo European blood (R1b+R1a) and the Bosniaks are mostly Mesolitich I2 natives. Nothing to do with Slavs and other savages from the North.

Stop with the insulting terms for other groups or I'll happily issue an infraction. Last warning.

Garrick
30-06-15, 19:50
So those HGs. were already present during the Neolitich age. This means that Balkan people have very little Indo European blood (R1b+R1a) and the Bosniaks are mostly Mesolitich I2 natives. Nothing to do with Slavs and other savages from the North.

Once I thought similar. But with the time and acquire more knowledge, no more.

Because, there is something different.

Carriers of I2 (both I1 and I2 are Old Europeans) possible are Proto Slavs. Without cultural exchange with I2, carriers of R1a in Europe and beyond and today probably would be similar as Iranians.

I will not say that this is secret which someone doesn't like to hear. No. And I didn't invent this. But you can suppose things are not easy when smaller population has cultural exchange with much bigger population, and in that exchange it has no subordinate role, in the contrary!

But, we should be completely honestly. Starcevo and Vinca cultures are mixed G2, F* (G?, T? or what) and I2. Here was one of key events in European past. I2 carriers adapted! With flow of time and in cohabitation/community with G2a/F* farmers I2 carriers acquired farmer's skills. Bingo!

One mystery for me is how and why G2a carriers disappear? I would like to hear different opinions what happened with G2a?

But I2a carriers survived.

Vinca culture was very important, it is assumption that first letters invented in this culture, before Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians. There are assumptions that Vinca culture influenced younger cultures, among others and Sumerian. Vinca culture developed advanced architecture, mines, metalurgy, etc. What's interesting, women were very modern, dressed like today's women (!) etc. Old Europe (term of respectable Marija Gimbutas) in full bright.

When I2a and R1a came in contact? It is possible in Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, maybe earlier. It doesn't matter for this short discussion, somewhere contact have happened. With flow of time I2 had influence (they didn't were subaltern). Of course, here details are missing, but this is enough to say about this idea.

Angela
30-06-15, 20:46
You might be surprised. People on other websites are still trashing Gimbutas' view of Old Europe as a more equal place for women. In fact, they seem to think that these people were just a bunch of stone age, cannibalistic farmers. I guess they never heard of their large towns, their metallurgy and beautiful ceramics, and never saw Anthony's wonderful museum exposition about it, or read Anthony's accompanying book on the subject. Apparently, the discovery of a few percent more WHG in Vinca over what Stuttgart and Starcevo had is not enough for them to suddenly think highly of it. At least they're consistent.

For the record, perhaps we have a language issue here, but no one ever said that some WHG I2, I1 men and some mtDna "U" women weren't absorbed by the farmers. That's been obvious since the first results showed up. What was said was that it was difficult and took place very slowly over a long period of time, 1500 years and more in some places.

The sudden spike in WHG around the time of the Bronze Age expansions from the steppe is another matter. Maybe in terms of places like the Balkans or even central Europe some had been hiding up in some mountain valleys and came down, as both I and Maciamo have speculated, once the Neolithic communities started crashing and the Indo-Europeans arrived.

As I said right after Haak came out, however, I think there might have been a steady flow of perhaps SHG like people into Central Europe from the Middle Neolithic on. In some places we see less influence, in other places a bit more. However, I also think it looks like there was a reservoir of WHG like people or mixed WHG/EHG like people perhaps due east of central Europe who got swept up in the Indo-European expansions. Maybe they were turned into stockmen as happened with the aborigines in Australia. At any rate, given that they would now have a more steady and reliable source of food, they would also have started expanding in terms of numbers.

As to the mesolithic yDNA "I" people of Europe, I've said before and I'll say again that depending on the time and place they would have been different autosomally, from a totally WHG person to a totally EEF person. The I2a people who became EEF in the Balkans were different from the I2a people who lived in the steppe or the I2a people who lived north near the Baltic.

There's as yet no way to know whether the the direct male ancestor of some of the I2a men in the Balkans was always in the Balkans, or came from the steppe in the Bronze Age, or was a hunter gatherer in the north until he became part of the Slavic speaking groups which moved south in the Middle Ages thousands of years later.

There is nothing proto-Slavic about the people of the Vinca culture.

By the way, you and everybody else is free to speculate. People are not free, however, to quote a paper as the final word on a subject when ancient dna has proven the comment to be incorrect. That's misleading.

Angela
01-07-15, 02:42
One way that Nagy approached the change in the Carpathians was by looking at the changes in mtDna.

"Regional LBK genetic dataset show homogeneity in the maternal gene pool across large distances in Europe..." In fact, although she points out some differences in mtDna between the southwestern Neolithic and the Danubian Neolithic, she maintains that her analysis shows that, " Both the mtDna and the Y-chromosomal data...suggest the common origin of the west Mediterranean and the Carpathian Basin Central European early farmers who reached and superimposed different Mesolithic substrates." (p. )

Then there are some slight changes in the mtDna as well as the yDna we have been discussing.

"Smaller scale infiltration or migration events...elevated number of hunter-gatherer mtDna in the Vinca population, the increase of H haplogroup frequency in the LBKT, new U8b sub-haplogroup from the SOP period, the mtDna T2f in the LGY, and the retrieval of the T1 in the BL population...a suite of small scale population genetic events which result in a detectible difference over this period of ~1000 years."

However, at the end of the day, "Gene effect of Starcevo was still significant in maternal gene pool of late Neolithic Central Germany."

One of the ways of tracking the introgression of the hunter-gatherers is by looking at mtDna "U" frequencies(as well as yDna frequencies, of course). This chart from the paper is very helpful.
7345

The levels of U2, U4, and U5, which I think most people would agree are "mesolithic central and North European" are very low in LBK and Starcevo (3% and 2%). They're higher in LBKT (7%) and Vinca (13%). Sopot only has 3%, Lengyel 6%, BL none. To me it looks as if there was a very small increase of Mesolithic mtDNA from the early Neolithic to LBKT and Vinca, but then they went down with the later groups.

I didn't include U3 and U8. I still agree with Maciamo that U3 is probably Neolithic, whether it came from the Near East or became Neolithic in Europe. It's discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29160-New-map-of-mtDNA-haplogroup-U3

In terms of U3, it's already in LBK (1%), Starcevo (2%), Vinca (10%), Sopot (3%) and none in Lengyel and BL.

As to U8, it's absent until Sopot, when it appears at 3%, then Lengyel comes in at 6% and BL8%. Elsewhere in the paper Nagy states that Soares et al estimated an age of 50,000 years for U8 in Europe, and was detected by Fu et al 2013 at Dolni Vestonici. Given this, it should perhaps also be added to the "Mesolithic" total for Sopot, Lengyel and BL, bringing the Mesolithic mtDna for these cultures to: 6% for Sopot, 12% for Lengyel, and 8% for BL.*


Nagy has this to say about these later changes: "can mean a new migration wave..which reached Transdanubia from the southeast direction again." (p 149) Could it be from the slightly different Neolitic pool of Cucteni Tripoltye?

Or, could this be related to the postulated movement of dairy farmers from northwest Anatolia into the balkans around 5500 BC?

These statements are very suggestive:
"SOP-LGY dataset is at the juncture of (Caucasus, Near East) from North Europe and North, East Asia clusters."

Garrick
01-07-15, 05:49
You might be surprised. People on other websites are still trashing Gimbutas' view of Old Europe as a more equal place for women. In fact, they seem to think that these people were just a bunch of stone age, cannibalistic farmers. I guess they never heard of their large towns, their metallurgy and beautiful ceramics, and never saw Anthony's wonderful museum exposition about it, or read Anthony's accompanying book on the subject. Apparently, the discovery of a few percent more WHG in Vinca over what Stuttgart and Starcevo had is not enough for them to suddenly think highly of it. At least they're consistent.

For the record, perhaps we have a language issue here, but no one ever said that some WHG I2, I1 men and some mtDna "U" women weren't absorbed by the farmers. That's been obvious since the first results showed up. What was said was that it was difficult and took place very slowly over a long period of time, 1500 years and more in some places.

The sudden spike in WHG around the time of the Bronze Age expansions from the steppe is another matter. Maybe in terms of places like the Balkans or even central Europe some had been hiding up in some mountain valleys and came down, as both I and Maciamo have speculated, once the Neolithic communities started crashing and the Indo-Europeans arrived.

As I said right after Haak came out, however, I think there might have been a steady flow of perhaps SHG like people into Central Europe from the Middle Neolithic on. In some places we see less influence, in other places a bit more. However, I also think it looks like there was a reservoir of WHG like people or mixed WHG/EHG like people perhaps due east of central Europe who got swept up in the Indo-European expansions. Maybe they were turned into stockmen as happened with the aborigines in Australia. At any rate, given that they would now have a more steady and reliable source of food, they would also have started expanding in terms of numbers.

As to the mesolithic yDNA "I" people of Europe, I've said before and I'll say again that depending on the time and place they would have been different autosomally, from a totally WHG person to a totally EEF person. The I2a people who became EEF in the Balkans were different from the I2a people who lived in the steppe or the I2a people who lived north near the Baltic.

There's as yet no way to know whether the the direct male ancestor of some of the I2a men in the Balkans was always in the Balkans, or came from the steppe in the Bronze Age, or was a hunter gatherer in the north until he became part of the Slavic speaking groups which moved south in the Middle Ages thousands of years later.

There is nothing proto-Slavic about the people of the Vinca culture.

By the way, you and everybody else is free to speculate. People are not free, however, to quote a paper as the final word on a subject when ancient dna has proven the comment to be incorrect. That's misleading.

Yes, I know it. Do you know that women in Slavic countries are very free. I don't think here about modern feminism, but they are free to express own sexuality. Males in Slavic countries are lucky men. Also, women have own authority and play significant role in society. Therefore and today you can read in books that Slavic world is society with female values. I can you show studies about it. It is difference comparing to classical capitalistic society where males values are more dominant.

There is one anecdote about Russians. They were pagans very long. Emissaries of the monotheistic religions came to the Russians rules and nobles to convert Russians in their faith. Muslim emissaries were very active. There are two reasons why Russians didn't convert to Islam. First is alcohol, Russian rulers explained to Muslim emissaries that Russians can't deny alcohol, they requested that this rule don't apply to Russians. But real reason is Russian women of rulers and nobles didn't want to convert. If women had lesser influence in Russian society today all Russians would be Muslims. This fact took the Greek emissaries who explained to Russians that women in Orthodox Christianity are equally with men. Russians women explored it and exerted influence on their husbands to accept. Russians are eternally grateful to the Greeks because they were converted from paganism to monoteism.

Vinca culture has significance for Slavic world and many authors wrote about it. There is link between Vinca and later cultures with Slavs. Creators Vinca culture are farmers and hunter gatherers who adapted. In terms Y-DNA, they are G2a, I2a and F* carriers. I think that F* carriers could be G carriers too, or perhaps T carriers. For me it was big change in past that hunter gatherers adapted and with flow of time became farmers. Key word is adaptation.

I don't know what happened with G2a carriers? Why and how these people dissapeared. A disaster, disease, what? I want to hear opinions about it.

I2a carriers survived and they were able to transmitting knowledge and skills created in Vinca and later cultures. Where I2a and R1a carriers first came to the contact. Surely start was hard. R world, both R1a and R1b, was completely different. But we saw exchange between cultures always was base for progress. I2a carriers had something to learn R1a carriers who came from East. Of course, this is simplified, but must so because of clarity of short text.

Vinca and related cultures were significant base. Their holders would be something like Pre-Proto-Slavs. Slavic world is cultural, not genetical. I told, without I2a carriers, (and others of course), R1a carriers who came in Europe would be similar as Iranians. They would not be Slavs.

This is what always confused hystoricians and others scientists. There were a lot of R1a carriers in wider areaes but nowhere Slavs. Yes, it is true, because they bacame Slavs only in connection with I2a carriers. Therefore I2a carriers were Proto Slavs, not R1a carriers. R1a carriers in Iran, middle Asia, India etc. are not Slavs.

Fire Haired14
01-07-15, 07:26
The Balkan-I2a1 subclade I've heard is estimated to have been born in the Bronze or Iron age. It looks like a single branch from the Mesolithic/Neolithic that became popular because of a founder effect. E-V13 and J2b look like better candidates for local Neolithic lineages. Two Hungarian I2a1s from Gamba 2014 got tested for downstream clades and both were I2a1a(Old name of M26, both belonged to brother branchs of M26). Balkan I2a1 today is under I2a1b.

Sile
01-07-15, 09:25
In terms Y-DNA, they are G2a, I2a and F* carriers. I think that F* carriers could be G carriers too, or perhaps T carriers. For me it was big change in past that hunter gatherers adapted and with flow of time became farmers. Key word is adaptation.



Look at post#12, for F* it cannot be G as it was tested negative

Trojet
01-07-15, 12:50
I totally agree with Fire Haire14. Vinca culture most likely had lineages of E-V13 and J2b (If indeed that's what these samples of E-M78 and J-M172 are from Sopot and Lengyel cultures), along with G2a and I2a. The current Balkan I2a is called "Dinaric" and the TMRCA is no older than 2500 years. And it is thought to have originated outside the Balkans.

It would also be premature to try to link Vinca culture to any present ethnicities/cultures.

Garrick
01-07-15, 13:57
Look at post#12, for F* it cannot be G as it was tested negative

Sile, I sow that.

It can be T, it would be significant if it is so, please explain in details.

Vinca culture was great and significant for cultures which draw upon its heritage.

G2a were original farmers, as Le Brok says, and they spread farming in Europe, I2a had transition from hunter gatherers to farmers what is big significance in the human past, if F* were T carriers it means that T carriers gave contribution this magnificent culture.

E-V13, J2 and C carriers came later, they participated in other cultures (Sopot, Lengyel).

Sile
01-07-15, 14:01
Sile, I sow that.

It can be T, it would be significant if it is so, please explain in details.

Vinca culture was great and significant for cultures which draw upon its heritage.

G2a were original farmers, as Le Brok says, and they spread farming in Europe, I2a had transition from hunter gatherers to farmers what is big significance in the human past, if F* were T carriers it means that T carriers gave contribution this magnificent culture.

E-V13, J2 and C carriers came later, they participated in other cultures (Sopot, Lengyel).

I am not saying they are T or L , all I am saying is that F* in Lengyel on that chart was tested to a certain level and the results are in post#12. you can see what was tested positive and what was tested negative.

The blank one ( white cells ) are per what the the paper states is H1-M69 ( ydna ) ( noted as TOLM3 on the chart )

The lengyel already has noted 3 x G2a..............

The other 3 non-tested ( white cells ) could be J

Trojet
01-07-15, 14:22
E-V13, J2 and C carriers came later, they participated in other cultures (Sopot, Lengyel).

So far we only have one y dna sample from Vinca culture, and it turned out as G2a. I would expect E-V13 and J2 to have been part of this culture since we know these two were found in the neighboring Sopot and Lengyel cultures ~7000 ybp. Vinca is dated from 5700 BC to 4500 BC, so it fits well with the emergence of these two haplogroups in the Balkans.

Garrick
01-07-15, 15:33
So far we only have one y dna sample from Vinca culture, and it turned out as G2a. I would expect E-V13 and J2 to have been part of this culture since we know these two were found in the neighboring Sopot and Lengyel cultures ~7000 ybp. Vinca is dated from 5700 BC to 4500 BC, so it fits well with the emergence of these two haplogroups in the Balkans.

We can see dates of cultures:

Starcevo 6,200-5,200 BC
Vinca 5,700-4,500 BC
LBK 5,500-4,500 BC
Sopot 5,000 - 3,900 BC
Lengyel 5,000-3,400 BC.

Sopot and Lenyel cultures are younger. Cultures are different, and areas aren't same, some cultures have common elements, some culture precede others, (but there are no agreement between scientists). For example Lengyel is more cultural horizon than archaeological culture in narrow sense. LBK culture originated from Starcevo culture, which transmitted according Szecsenyi-Nagy the knowledge of farming and sedentary subsistence to the major part of Central Europe.

Key early farmers are G2a carriers and we can see them in big parts in Europe, not only in areas of these cultures. And LeBrok gives useful explanation. If others participated and when perhaps good explanation gives Maciamo for E-V13 (Thread: "What is the main haplogroup of Cucuteni-Trypillian (Tripolye) culture?", #35).

Starcevo, and especially Vinca cultures are important for what I wrote, but I have no intention far to continue discussion about that in this thread. I only gave answer, if I should continue, it will be new thread but it should be good prepared.

Angela
01-07-15, 15:52
Yes, I know it. Do you know that women in Slavic countries are very free. I don't think here about modern feminism, but they are free to express own sexuality. Males in Slavic countries are lucky men. Also, women have own authority and play significant role in society. Therefore and today you can read in books that Slavic world is society with female values. I can you show studies about it. It is difference comparing to classical capitalistic society where males values are more dominant.

There is one anecdote about Russians. They were pagans very long. Emissaries of the monotheistic religions came to the Russians rules and nobles to convert Russians in their faith. Muslim emissaries were very active. There are two reasons why Russians didn't convert to Islam. First is alcohol, Russian rulers explained to Muslim emissaries that Russians can't deny alcohol, they requested that this rule don't apply to Russians. But real reason is Russian women of rulers and nobles didn't want to convert. If women had lesser influence in Russian society today all Russians would be Muslims. This fact took the Greek emissaries who explained to Russians that women in Orthodox Christianity are equally with men. Russians women explored it and exerted influence on their husbands to accept. Russians are eternally grateful to the Greeks because they were converted from paganism to monoteism.

Vinca culture has significance for Slavic world and many authors wrote about it. There is link between Vinca and later cultures with Slavs. Creators Vinca culture are farmers and hunter gatherers who adapted. In terms Y-DNA, they are G2a, I2a and F* carriers. I think that F* carriers could be G carriers too, or perhaps T carriers. For me it was big change in past that hunter gatherers adapted and with flow of time became farmers. Key word is adaptation.

I don't know what happened with G2a carriers? Why and how these people dissapeared. A disaster, disease, what? I want to hear opinions about it.

I2a carriers survived and they were able to transmitting knowledge and skills created in Vinca and later cultures. Where I2a and R1a carriers first came to the contact. Surely start was hard. R world, both R1a and R1b, was completely different. But we saw exchange between cultures always was base for progress. I2a carriers had something to learn R1a carriers who came from East. Of course, this is simplified, but must so because of clarity of short text.

Vinca and related cultures were significant base. Their holders would be something like Pre-Proto-Slavs. Slavic world is cultural, not genetical. I told, without I2a carriers, (and others of course), R1a carriers who came in Europe would be similar as Iranians. They would not be Slavs.

This is what always confused hystoricians and others scientists. There were a lot of R1a carriers in wider areaes but nowhere Slavs. Yes, it is true, because they bacame Slavs only in connection with I2a carriers. Therefore I2a carriers were Proto Slavs, not R1a carriers. R1a carriers in Iran, middle Asia, India etc. are not Slavs.



The ancient people of the Balkans whom we are discussing, including the people of Vinca, have nothing to do with Slavs or proto-Slavs either, who formed in a very different area, among very different people, with a very different autosomal profile, and at a much later time. That should be clear from the very learned posts Taranis has contributed to the Slavic threads.

The fact that proto-Slavs might have contained some I2a carriers, and Vinca may have had a few I2a carriers is irrelevant to that basic fact. For one thing, the I2a carried by the majority of the proto-Slavs was most probably a different branch from that carried by the people of Vinca, separated by thousands of years if they even carried it, since the one sample we have is G2a. The I2a carried by modern men in the Balkans is very different from the I2a of Neolithic Hungary, for example, as Fire-Haired has pointed out.

Regardless, the I2a people in the Balkans would have been autosomally very different from the I2a people in the north and on the steppe. Ydna is only a small part of someone's genetic make-up. You can have a black African and a Swede who both carry R1b. This is elementary stuff, Garrick. Going by your logic, the Sardinians are pre-proto-Slavs too, as are the Spaniards who carry I2a yDna.

The Slavs or the proto-Slavs or the pre-proto-Slavs did not form from the Neolithic people of the Balkans. The Slavs arrived very late in the Balkans, as a people carrying a different genetic signature, not a better or worse one, just a different one.

Now, we've gone off track enough. This is not a thread about Slavic ethnogenesis.

Trojet
01-07-15, 15:59
We can see dates of cultures:

Starcevo 6,200-5,200 BC
Vinca 5,700-4,500 BC
LBK 5,500-4,500 BC
Sopot 5,000 - 3,900 BC
Lengyel 5,000-3,400 BC.

Sopot and Lenyel cultures are younger. Cultures are different, and areas aren't same, some cultures have common elements, some culture precede others, (but there are no agreement between scientists). For example Lengyel is more cultural horizon than archaeological culture in narrow sense. LBK culture originated from Starcevo culture, which transmitted according Szecsenyi-Nagy the knowledge of farming and sedentary subsistence to the major part of Central Europe.

Key early farmers are G2a carriers and we can see them in big parts in Europe, not only in areas of these cultures. And LeBrok gives useful explanation. If others participated and when perhaps good explanation gives Maciamo for E-V13 (Thread: "What is the main haplogroup of Cucuteni-Trypillian (Tripolye) culture?", #35).

Starcevo, and especially Vinca cultures are important for what I wrote, but I have no intention far to continue discussion about that in this thread. I only gave answer, if I should continue, it will be new thread but it should be good prepared.

I have no intention or agenda to continue this discussion discussion any further. I agree, it is pretty evident that G2a was part of early Neolithic farmers. All I said is that it would be premature to say that E-V13 and J2 were not part of the Vinca culture as you suggested. The argument is however stronger at this point to propose that they were part of it, since Vinca falls in the mid Neolithic, especially considering that both of these haplogroups were found in the two different neighboring cultures. I don't think they just magically appeared in the neighboring Sopot and Langyel, and bypassing completely the somewhat earlier Vinca cculture. We need more ancient DNA from the area to jump to any conclusions though.

Garrick
01-07-15, 16:22
The Slavs or proto-Slavs formed in a very different area, among very different people, with a very different autosomal profile, and at a much later time. That should be clear from the very learned posts Taranis has contributed to the Slavic threads.

The fact that proto-Slavs might have contained some I2a carriers, and Vinca may have had a few I2a carriers is irrelevant to that basic fact. For one thing, the I2a carried by the majority of the proto-Slavs was most probably a different branch from that carried by the people of Vinca, separated by thousands of years if they even carried it, since the one sample we have is G2a. The I2a carried by modern men in the Balkans is very different from the I2a of Neolithic Hungary, for example, as Fire-Haired has pointed out.

Regardless, the I2a people in the Balkans would have been autosomally very different from the I2a people in the north and on the steppe. Ydna is only a small part of someone's genetic make-up. You can have a black African and a Swede who both carry R1b. This is elementary stuff, Garrick. Going by your logic, the Sardinians are pre-proto-Slavs too, as are the Spaniards who carry I2a yDna.

The Slavs or the proto-Slavs or the pre-proto-Slavs did not form from the Neolithic people of the area around Vinca. The Slavs arrived very late in the Balkans, as a people carrying a different genetic signature, not a better or worse one, just a different one.

Now, we've gone off track enough. This is not a thread about Slavic ethnogenesis.

Yes, as I said don't think add more about this in this thread. There are books and studies about it. And of course I didn't invent that Proto Slavs are I2a, when I read about this subject from some Polish and other sources it was interesting and with basis. Maybe I will open new thread but it should be good prepared.

Angela
01-07-15, 16:56
I have no intention or agenda to continue this discussion discussion any further. I agree, it is pretty evident that G2a was part of early Neolithic farmers. All I said is that it would be premature to say that E-V13 and J2 were not part of the Vinca culture as you suggested. The argument is however stronger at this point to propose that they were part of it, since Vinca falls in the mid Neolithic, especially considering that both of these haplogroups were found in the two different neighboring cultures. I don't think they just magically appeared in the neighboring Sopot and Langyel, and bypassing completely the somewhat earlier Vinca cculture. We need more ancient DNA from the area to jump to any conclusions though.

I think that's the right approach. We've learned that we should be cautious in speculating about what yDNA will show up where and in what time period.

So, I don't know what else may turn up in Vinca. However, it seems that Sopot, Lengyel and BL represent a movement from the south, a later movement, it's true, by about 700 years, but to reach the Sopot and Lengyel areas one route would take you through Vinca territory. So, early Vinca may not have had E-V13 and J2, but later Vinca (which continued for another 500 years), or at least the area around Vinca, might have been a different story.

I posted this map before. Someone asked for a source. I'm sorry but now I don't remember who asked or in what thread. My apologies. Anyway, it is a map of the Neolithic cultures which comes from the Wiki article on the Lengyel culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengyel_culture#/media/File:European_Late_Neolithic.gif

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/European_Late_Neolithic.gif/500px-European_Late_Neolithic.gif

If people go directly to the link, it can be read without benefit of a magnifying glass. :)

Trojet
01-07-15, 18:49
I think that's the right approach. We've learned that we should be cautious in speculating about what yDNA will show up where and in what time period.

So, I don't know what else may turn up in Vinca. However, it seems that Sopot, Lengyel and BL represent a movement from the south, a later movement, it's true, by about 700 years, but to reach the Sopot and Lengyel areas one route would take you through Vinca territory. So, early Vinca may not have had E-V13 and J2, but later Vinca (which continued for another 500 years), or at least the area around Vinca, might have been a different story.
Thank you :) Exactly my thoughts. Also in regards to E-V13 and J2 movements...

Sile
01-07-15, 20:48
I am not saying they are T or L , all I am saying is that F* in Lengyel on that chart was tested to a certain level and the results are in post#12. you can see what was tested positive and what was tested negative.

The blank one ( white cells ) are per what the the paper states is H1-M69 ( ydna ) ( noted as TOLM3 on the chart )

The lengyel already has noted 3 x G2a..............

The other 3 non-tested ( white cells ) could be J

further on these F* from the paper

even if we make , BAL3, BAL 12 and VEJ12 all as J haplogroup ( but they cannot be J1 or J2 as they are tested negative for these ), we still have the following:
BAM17, 25, 26, BAL9, 11, 13 and CSAT19 with the only possibility of being either T or L markers

Then again, they could always remain as just F*

F* is noted as F-M89
F-M89* might share a common demographic history with H-M69 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H-M69_%28Y-DNA%29), C5 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C_%28Y-DNA%29), R2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R2_%28Y-DNA%29) and L1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_L_%28Y-DNA%29) including J (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J_%28Y-DNA%29), R1b (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29), and T (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29).
F*(xG,H,I,J,K) is also found among Turkic people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_people) in Turkmenistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkmenistan) and Uzbekistan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan), which is reported in the genetic study of Balaresque et al. (2015).[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_F-M89#cite_note-10)
[10] =

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014285a.html

the supptable for the paper above with its 461 ydna tested markers , clearly shows R1a in the eastern side of the caspian sea and very very little R1b. the conclusion is R1b pushed through the caucasus to get to the steppe and find their yamnya

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ejhg2014285x3.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2014285a.html)

But this means little in terms of the ancient findings of F* of the main paper on this thread

Garrick
01-07-15, 22:19
The current Balkan I2a is called "Dinaric" and the TMRCA is no older than 2500 years.

It is normal. Subclades are younger than clades. You have subclades of E-V13 which TMCRA is no older than 1,500 years. This is after Christ.

But subclades don't occur in vacuum. Man who is first person to carry any mutation has his father too and lives in tribe where members of tribe have same haplogroup (we can suppose this due to simplicity of discussion). There is continuity.


All I said is that it would be premature to say that E-V13 and J2 were not part of the Vinca culture as you suggested.

Could they become newcomers? Yes, why not. And it shows tolerance Vinca culture for newcomers by its indigenous/creators who were probably G2a, F* and I2a1.

Short example, only for explanation. You can imagine Europeans who created European culture. In second part of 20th century happened immigration in a large scale to Europe from Africa and Asia. Newcomers become new inhabitants of Europe, but of course they are not creators European culture.


It would also be premature to try to link Vinca culture to any present ethnicities/cultures.

It depends, I cannot know exactly what you mean. Vinca culture was very inventive, innovations created in Vinca culture (both technical and social) began to spread around ancient world. Many new culture undoubtedly contained what in the Vinca culture created. Some people have transferred these innovations and knowledge. In new cultures this knowledge was upgraded by its members. And so from the older to the newer culture there was some continuity.

Trojet
02-07-15, 06:15
It is normal. Subclades are younger than clades. You have subclades of E-V13 which TMCRA is no older than 1,500 years. This is after Christ.

But subclades don't occur in vacuum. Man who is first person to carry any mutation has his father too and lives in tribe where members of tribe have same haplogroup (we can suppose this due to simplicity of discussion). There is continuity.



Could they become newcomers? Yes, why not. And it shows tolerance Vinca culture for newcomers by its indigenous/creators who were probably G2a, F* and I2a1.

Short example, only for explanation. You can imagine Europeans who created European culture. In second part of 20th century happened immigration in a large scale to Europe from Africa and Asia. Newcomers become new inhabitants of Europe, but of course they are not creators European culture.



It depends, I cannot know exactly what you mean. Vinca culture was very inventive, innovations created in Vinca culture (both technical and social) began to spread around ancient world. Many new culture undoubtedly contained what in the Vinca culture created. Some people have transferred these innovations and knowledge. In new cultures this knowledge was upgraded by its members. And so from the older to the newer culture there was some continuity.

Im sorry, but I have no time or agenda to continue this discussion with you, unlike you. Im not going to waste my time here trying to give you facts and for some reason you feel the need to quote me on everything I say. There is nothing factually wrong what I said in those quotations. If there is, I would like someone else to point that out please.

Yetos
02-07-15, 07:58
I think that's the right approach. We've learned that we should be cautious in speculating about what yDNA will show up where and in what time period.

So, I don't know what else may turn up in Vinca. However, it seems that Sopot, Lengyel and BL represent a movement from the south, a later movement, it's true, by about 700 years, but to reach the Sopot and Lengyel areas one route would take you through Vinca territory. So, early Vinca may not have had E-V13 and J2, but later Vinca (which continued for another 500 years), or at least the area around Vinca, might have been a different story.

I posted this map before. Someone asked for a source. I'm sorry but now I don't remember who asked or in what thread. My apologies. Anyway, it is a map of the Neolithic cultureshttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#4761834) which comes from the Wiki article on the Lengyel culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lengyel_culture#/media/File:European_Late_Neolithic.gif

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/European_Late_Neolithic.gif/500px-European_Late_Neolithic.gif

If peoplehttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#9632679) go directly to the link, it can be read without benefit of a magnifying glass. :)


could E-V13 came after IE in balkans?

LeBrok
02-07-15, 08:03
could E-V13 came after IE in balkans?
I can't believe you missed all the relevant threads of last few days!

Angela
02-07-15, 15:59
Im sorry, but I have no time or agenda to continue this discussion with you, unlike you. Im not going to waste my time here trying to give you facts and for some reason you feel the need to quote me on everything I say. There is nothing factually wrong what I said in those quotations. If there is, I would like someone else to point that out please.

There's nothing factually wrong in anything you said. "Dinaric" I2a may not have been involved with Vinca at all. Regardless of whether that turns out to be true or not, Vinca has nothing to do with the Slavic "ethnogenesis".

bicicleur
03-07-15, 21:41
the F* of lengyel and other areas

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/vicpret/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg (http://s103.photobucket.com/user/vicpret/media/ffff_zps3nsad8le.jpg.html)

whats left ?................T and L ydna haplogroups

no - they've been tested negative for K

DejaVu
05-07-15, 22:33
https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11403456_724869694305901_6205567937294479380_n.jpg ?oh=9d02ecc6bae0e766e70b12a2f36f5ba3&oe=561583AA

MOESAN
23-07-15, 15:27
Sile, I sow that.

It can be T, it would be significant if it is so, please explain in details.

Vinca culture was great and significant for cultures which draw upon its heritage.

G2a were original farmers, as Le Brok says, and they spread farming in Europe, I2a had transition from hunter gatherers to farmers what is big significance in the human past, if F* were T carriers it means that T carriers gave contribution this magnificent culture.

E-V13, J2 and C carriers came later, they participated in other cultures (Sopot, Lengyel).

All we have as ancient DNA is still meager at Europe scale. We saw "new" ancient haplos in the neolithic world contradicting our first bets. Nothing proves yet we shall not find more ancient Y-E1b and J2 (even J1) in future (the "past future" LOL). That said without any agenda or presupposed skeme -