PDA

View Full Version : Upcoming paper on Balkan Neolithic



Angela
09-09-16, 14:35
This is the ASHG conference (October) abstract of a new paper on ancient dna from the Balkan Neolithic from the Reich group. Again, we will be in for some surprises.

Genome-wide ancient DNA from Europe’s first encounter of farmers and hunter-gatherers. Mathieson et al


https://ep70.eventpilot.us/web/page.php?page=IntHtml&project=ASHG16&id=160122024

"Abstract:
The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region.

We generated new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe. The population admixture was patchy across both space and time, varying in magnitude between 0% and 30% for different early Balkan farming populations. The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

We also analyze the data to generate new insights about natural selection. The first farmers of the Balkans were in the initial stages of adaptation to environments that were dramatically different from those that their ancestors had encountered. We show that many of the adaptations related to diet and immunity that later become common in Europe were already present in early Balkan farmer populations, but not at high frequency. Thus, the adaptation of the first European farmers to their local environment was driven to a substantial extent by pre-existing variantion.



So, these hunter-gatherers were related to EHG and SHG? I wonder what yDna they carried?

Why wouldn't most Europeans have ancestry from this admixture event? Did the main EEF group just move on into central and northern Europe? Did the admixed group die out? Or is it that the very first wave of farmers wasn't very successful and it's a later wave(s) from which Europeans are descended?

They're not saying no ancestry, so it wasn't a wipe out, but our understanding of this process was obviously too simple.

berun
09-09-16, 15:23
I dont' understand the logics behind such statement, maybe reading the paper I will, but now it is quite logic that if the Balkan farmers mixed with Balkan HG, let's say to 10%, when they spread to the north and the west they would mix again there, getting a major percent of admixture.

bicicleur
09-09-16, 17:08
They don't say those Balkan HG had other Y-DNA than 'modern European HG DNA', but at least different autosomal.
But mayby these Balkan HG descend from the Anatolians who brougth obsidian from Melos and seeds from Anatolia to the Peloponesos 13 ka, 1000 year after the Villabruna people. Them my guess would be G2a2.
I hope they have DNA from the Danube Gorge HG with their strange huts and plastered floors and their fish-Gods

My guess is that there were 2 waves of neolithisation into Europe. The first wave did not get any further then LBK and Carded/Impressed Ware.
They were replaced by a 2nd wave getting as far as the British Isles, TRB and Cucuteni-Tripolye.

But it is better to wait and see what the paper will say.

Angela
09-09-16, 17:20
How could hunter-gatherers from Anatolia with G2a be "related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe", though.

It's very confusing.

Someone just told me that Eurogenes says it might be R1b and claims Villabruna, who was also R1b, had evidence of that ancestry.

Villabruna is sort of THE hunter-gatherer template for the hunter-gatherers in central Europe who admixed with the farmers, isn't he? He and Bichon from Switzerland? Maybe I haven't followed this enough, lately, but wasn't the "eastern" ancestry in the other WHG, not Villabruna, or not as much in Villabruna?

After Villabruna, I did sort of think R1b might be in the Balkan hunter-gatherers, but now with them saying they're not very related to WHG, I don't know.

Maciamo
09-09-16, 18:32
The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?p=488375&viewfull=1#post488375). The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.

berun
09-09-16, 18:55
The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

If the question is about atosomals and not about percentages I don't see also the problem. If the farmer expansion was quick with not enough time to mix too much with Balkan HG of course the admixture of the north and western farmers would be different (if the local HG had different autosomals)

bicicleur
09-09-16, 18:59
If the question is about atosomals and not about percentages I don't see also the problem. If the farmer expansion was quick with not enough time to mix too much with Balkan HG of course the admixture of the north and western farmers would be different (if the local HG had different autosomals)

there was a lot of time to mix with HG during Kris-Starcevo-Körös period when the Carpathian Basin was not densely popultated by farmers
furthermore the Danube Gorge HG had intense trading relations with the neolithic tribes from the Aegean and took farmers daughters as theri wives

bicicleur
09-09-16, 19:01
but aren't Europeans supposed to be a WHG - EEF - ANE mixture
and isn't EEF Stutgart LBK who came from the Balkans?

Angela
09-09-16, 19:43
but aren't Europeans supposed to be a WHG - EEF - ANE mixture
and isn't EEF Stutgart LBK who came from the Balkans?

Yes, exactly. The EEF is based on Stuttgart, and the WHG data originally was Loschbour, if I remember correctly. Villabruna is also WHG. He and Bichon are the most alike, again, if I remember correctly, but they are in the same group as Loschbour.

The hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, around the Danube Gates, are of a different type, related to Scandinavian and Eastern European foragers, and yet we're not descended from them.

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Perhaps this is just badly worded, but that would seem to mean they can't be all that related to the EHG and SHG, or how could the authors say that we're not descended from them. After all, we're descended from the EHG.

They don't seem to be saying that the first farmers didn't contribute to Northern and Western Europeans even if there were succeeding waves, but that those particular hunter-gatherers didn't contribute much to modern Europeans.

I think I remember things from the "modelers" where the best hunter-gatherer for the mixture in the MN people of Central and northwestern Europe was the Koros hunter-gatherer.

That still leaves the open question of what happened to that mixed group?

You know, perhaps it does have something to do with the steppe people. They may have moved into parts of the Balkans early, although the Baden results tell us that they did not make it into Central Europe in the Copper Age. Perhaps they wiped out all the MN groups in the Balkans? Their culture, helped by the plague, might have been able to accomplish it, yes? The Central European MN people might have survived better because the waves reached them later?

Otherwise, since descent from the admixed farmer culture in that area would necessitate admixture from these hunter-gatherers, why don't we get any of their genes?

berun
09-09-16, 19:58
@bicicleur
Do you know demographics for such area and period? If per example there was one HG for 100 farmers... it would be necessary a lot of time to reach per example a 10% admixture. Instead, in north Europe HG demography was "high" thanks to the maritime resources.

bicicleur
09-09-16, 20:12
berun,
afaik there were practically no mesolithic HG south of the Danube, except in coastal areas
but the Carpathian Basin was populated by HG
for farmers, I have my info from the book 'Europe between the oceans' by Barry Cunliffe
contrary to LBK, in the Carpathian Basin farmers lived just in a few remote floodplains and apart from farming they were also engaged in hunting and fishing, their economy was mixed
there was lots of empty space in between the farmer settlements

berun
09-09-16, 20:51
If south of the Danube was almost devoid of HG it would explain a scanty admixture there and provide a reason for the difference in regional admixtures. The Carpatian Bassin is much like the Pannonian steppe, few natural resorces, so also HG would have even less presence.

Yetos
09-09-16, 23:10
Ha? :suspicious:


:wtf: :banghead:

A. Papadimitriou
09-09-16, 23:38
Yes, exactly. The EEF is based on Stuttgart, and the WHG data originally was Loschbour, if I remember correctly. Villabruna is also WHG. He and Bichon are the most alike, again, if I remember correctly, but they are in the same group as Loschbour.

The hunter-gatherers in the Balkans, around the Danube Gates, are of a different type, related to Scandinavian and Eastern European foragers, and yet we're not descended from them.

"The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers. "

Perhaps this is just badly worded, but that would seem to mean they can't be all that related to the EHG and SHG, or how could the authors say that we're not descended from them. After all, we're descended from the EHG.

They don't seem to be saying that the first farmers didn't contribute to Northern and Western Europeans even if there were succeeding waves, but that those particular hunter-gatherers didn't contribute much to modern Europeans.

I think I remember things from the "modelers" where the best hunter-gatherer for the mixture in the MN people of Central and northwestern Europe was the Koros hunter-gatherer.

That still leaves the open question of what happened to that mixed group?

You know, perhaps it does have something to do with the steppe people. They may have moved into parts of the Balkans early, although the Baden results tell us that they did not make it into Central Europe in the Copper Age. Perhaps they wiped out all the MN groups in the Balkans? Their culture, helped by the plague, might have been able to accomplish it, yes? The Central European MN people might have survived better because the waves reached them later?

Otherwise, since descent from the admixed farmer culture in that area would necessitate admixture from these hunter-gatherers, why don't we get any of their genes?

It says that the farmers who contributed most of the migrants to Northern and Western Europe were not mixed substantially with the local Balkan HGs.
The farmers who contributed to the rest of the Europe may haven been admixed with them though.

Tomenable
10-09-16, 02:01
The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

bicicleur
10-09-16, 09:44
If south of the Danube was almost devoid of HG it would explain a scanty admixture there and provide a reason for the difference in regional admixtures. The Carpatian Bassin is much like the Pannonian steppe, few natural resorces, so also HG would have even less presence.

only 1 mesolithic site south of the Danube is known, and it is inland from Varna in Bulgaria
all other sites are in Greece or coastal Albania or furhter north along the Dalmatian coast

bicicleur
10-09-16, 18:31
^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

Globular Amphora could be Cucuteni-derived, but I don't think TRB or British neolithic or Fraench Chasséen.
A possibility is a common source fro all 4 of these neolithic groups.

holderlin
10-09-16, 19:52
[/B]This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?p=488375&viewfull=1#post488375). The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.

More and more signs pointing to early departure of European IE lineages.

holderlin
10-09-16, 20:02
^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.


[/B]This is what I was trying to explain in the thread about the Tripolye mtdna (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?p=488375&viewfull=1#post488375). The reason why mt-haplogroups N1a almost vanished and K1a starkly decreased from the European gene pool from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age might simply be that the modern admixture between Near Eastern farmers and 'native' Europeans took place in eastern Europe, especially with the 4000-year exchange of populations between the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture and its neighbours, then its increasing contact with Steppe cultures. Once the Indo-Europeans invaded central Europe, they already had the 40% of so of EEF admixture in them, and all the modern mtDNA lineages from Near Eastern farmers. The merger would have happened around modern Romania and western Ukraine, not progressively as they moved west. Of course, some more blending of population would have occurred later too, but the bulk of intermarriages would have happened maybe in the 1500 years from 4500 to 3000 BCE, right before the Corded Ware expansion. After all, Steppe incursions into the Balkans started from c. 4200 BCE. If this theory is correct, it would mean that the vast majority of Neolithic Europeans were wiped out by the PIE invaders or by diseases, or for other reasons - such as climatic change causing a farming collapse, as has been suggested. In that scenario, the majority of EEF genes in northern and central Europeans today would have come from the Cucuteni-Tripolye and adjacent cultures that mixed early with Steppe people, before the major invasion began. After all it took the PIE some 1500 years to leave the region of modern Romania, Moldova and western Ukraine, but it took them only a few centuries to conquer the whole of western Europe once they had reached Germany, Austria and Bohemia c. 2500 BCE. The pace was very different, hinting at an "express" conquest, perhaps also because Europe had become badly depopulated due to the cooling of the climate and failing crops.

That theory would also explain why so many Neolithic Y-DNA lineages disappeared (C1a2, G2a2, H2) while some very specific sub-branches prospered (G2a3b-L141, T1a1a2a, I2a1b-M423). It would be because those few select lineages would have been assimilated early by the PIE before the big westward migration and recolonisation of Europe.


Yep, look closely at the archaeology of Bug-Dniester and Sredny Stog in relation to their Western Neighbors. It fits perfectly.

halfalp
10-09-16, 20:17
And if, R1b was just the original european farmer... Later replaced by G, coming from North Iran or Far East Anatolia, with the modern distribution of G1 and G2 i never believe that G haplogroup was in a goulot d'étranglement in anatolia... R1b Epipaleolithc / Mesolithic balkans and west asia minor, can have take farming for G East Anatolia.

Angela
10-09-16, 20:33
And if, R1b was just the original european farmer... Later replaced by G, coming from North Iran or Far East Anatolia, with the modern distribution of G1 and G2 i never believe that G haplogroup was in a goulot d'étranglement in anatolia... R1b Epipaleolithc / Mesolithic balkans and west asia minor, can have take farming for G East Anatolia.

No R1b Neolithic farmers have been discovered in the Near East to date, although I would expect that at some point an R1b V88 farmer or herder should show up. There's a typically Neolithic farmer R1b sample in Iberia as well.

However, people on this Board are primarily discussing the downstream clades of R1b, and preferably of the P312 variety when they're talking about tracking it to steppe groups.

That does seem the best bet at present, although it may have happened before the movement of the Yamnaya "eastern" clades.

However, all this certainty is misplaced in my opinion. This is all highly speculative.

halfalp
10-09-16, 23:23
No but, if the EHG component of R1b is in fact primary farmers or herders from balkans who is going in the steppe with Bug-Dniester herding culture and Khvalynsk / Samara herders pushing by the second wave of the Danubian Neolithic, like we dont really know exactly how the neolithic scheme work, maybe that the first farmers / herders were quite nomadics. In mouvement of population, and haplogroups, we always seen an origin and a replacement, like r1a and r1b must have being somehwat neighbourg, like O and N where, or R and Q, I in europe and J in eastern europe / caucasus L and T... How can G following H, wich is found in india, being in anatolia and R1b in actual armenia, like, its just dont have any sens. Its more plausible that G is originaly iranian marker, and follow migrations from other tribes, make is road in mesopotamia / anatolia.

halfalp
10-09-16, 23:41
Like just think about that, We've got the Villabruna cluster, epipaleolithic wich is correlate with the epigravettian, epigravettian is an central, eastern perhaps circum-black sea cultural component. This guy is R1b, so you all think R1b was in Iran / Armenia in neolithic, and so what, was in afghanistan in paleolithic ? LUL, And so this R1b found in North Italia, manage to make is way among different population and component from Afghanistan / Iran in paleolithic, arrived in central europe and become an 100% WHG... That paper and the previous about the Villabruna cluster, just tell us that coming from the steppe, R1b is become a south circum black sea component comprise in Blakans, Asia minor, perhaps heaven transcaucasus. So, now, weve got the Danubian Neolithic, that we know was exclusively G2a. The only explanation is that, G2a farmer coming from middle east / north iran replaced, R1b Asia minor and Balkans culture, wich go on the steppe and replaced R1a further north. Maybe r1b people already had little farming experience when they coming to the steppe. + Those south european but already continental climat, people, who early take from their middle eastern neighbourg farming, can be the perfect reason from an early skin and hair mutation who's gonna give lightning mutation after.

LeBrok
11-09-16, 01:38
^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.
You go where your heart wants to lead you, and not your brain.

I mentioned few times that the perfect North European farmer came from mixture of Neolithic Farmer with hunter gatherers (EHG) somewhere in West Yamnaya. They could farm and produce a lot of food and they could hunt to supplement their diet when climate cooled down. That only goes for Northern Europe as South remained in better climatic condition and was always heavily populated by Farmers. South was never depopulated not allowing IE newcomers to conquer it quickly, but the North was. CW success was based on this, the excellent genetic mix for farming/hunting in North and depopulation of Neolithic Farmers during cold spells. Looking at genetics of today's Northern Europeans, I think the mixing was 3 to 1. For 3 IE newcomers to 1 Neolithic Farmer. The scale of mixing must have been similar to NW Europe too.

I don't think Cucuteni were heavily mixed with hunter gatherers. If they were they would have survived the failed corps spell and we would have seen their cultural achievements to continue. It might be a case that very Northern Cucuteni mixed enough with EHG to survive and create a new culture of IE type. However, most likely CW was from somewhere in NW Yamnaya. Very heavy in EHG and R1a and low on farmer gene.

If Cucuteni indeed would have turned to be heavily mixed with hunter gatherers, I would think it was the R1b type, and coming late from South West Yamnaya. Or somehow Cucuteni farmers got "infected" with neighboring R1b subclades, which spread to high proportions through couple of thousand of years, in spite of low hunter gatherer admixture. There was enough time for this to happen.

holderlin
11-09-16, 03:23
You go where your heart wants to lead you, and not your brain.
I mentioned few times that the perfect North European farmer came from mixture of Neolithic Farmer with hunter gatherers (EHG) somewhere in West Yamnaya. They could farm and produce a lot of food and they could hunt to supplement their diet when climate cooled down. That only goes for Northern Europe as South remained in better climatic condition and was always heavily populated by Farmers. South was never depopulated not allowing IE newcomers to conquer it quickly, but the North was. CW success was based on this, the excellent genetic mix for farming/hunting in North and depopulation of Neolithic Farmers during cold spells. Looking at genetics of today's Northern Europeans, I think the mixing was 3 to 1. For 3 IE newcomers to 1 Neolithic Farmer. The scale of mixing must have been similar to NW Europe too.

I don't think Cucuteni were heavily mixed with hunter gatherers. If they were they would have survived the failed corps spell and we would have seen their cultural achievements to continue. It might be a case that very Northern Cucuteni mixed enough with EHG to survive and create a new culture of IE type. However, most likely CW was from somewhere in NW Yamnaya. Very heavy in EHG and R1a and low on farmer gene.

If Cucuteni indeed would have turned to be heavily mixed with hunter gatherers, I would think it was the R1b type, and coming late from South West Yamnaya. Or somehow Cucuteni farmers got "infected" with neighboring R1b subclades, which spread to high proportions through couple of thousand of years, in spite of low hunter gatherer admixture. There was enough time for this to happen.

I don't know how you think that your sweeping conclusions are any more valid than Tomenable's.

Fire Haired14
11-09-16, 05:07
Abstracts have been miss leading before. Let's be open to many possibilities.

Fire Haired14
11-09-16, 07:51
Below are important details from the abstract.

We generated new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans and adjacent regions

They did not get DNA from Balkan hunter gatherers. Their statements about the Balkan hunter gatherers is based on Balkan farmers, and so iffy and not fact.


The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. This suggests that the waves of farmers that contributed most of the migrants to northern and western Europe were not ones that mixed substantially with local Balkan hunter-gatherers.

I've read past abstracts make similar very specific be all end all factious statements. Every single time I can remember these statements are based on a single analysis and are later proven to be simplified interpretations of the data or straight up wrong. What predominant form of hunter gatherer ancestry in modern Europeans are they referring to? Europeans have much more EHG than WHG on average and so they may not be referring to WHG btw. How did they determine what type of hunter gatherer ancestry modern European's have? Before we learn the analysis they used I'm not going to take this be all end all statement very seriously.

Another thing I want to say is Hungary_BA has a larger EHG vs CHG ratio than Yamnaya. This could be because of Balkan with EHG admixture before Steppe people arrived with EHG and CHG. Hungary_BA also has a huge amount of WHG, more than any modern Europeans, and its WHG is clearly mostly local to Hungary(very related to Hungary WHG).

LeBrok
11-09-16, 18:10
I don't know how you think that your sweeping conclusions are any more valid than Tomenable's. The test is coming soon.

LeBrok
11-09-16, 18:26
Another thing I want to say is Hungary_BA has a larger EHG vs CHG ratio than Yamnaya. This could be because of Balkan with EHG admixture before Steppe people arrived with EHG and CHG. Hungary_BA also has a huge amount of WHG, more than any modern Europeans, and its WHG is clearly mostly local to Hungary(very related to Hungary WHG). We already have Hungarian WHG genome. It was the KO1, IIRC. I don't think there was a news about it being different from other WHGs.

Tomenable
11-09-16, 18:34
Looking at genetics of today's Northern Europeans, I think the mixing was 3 to 1. For 3 IE newcomers to 1 Neolithic Farmer.

Yes. But it was usually 2 IE men + 1 IE woman + 1 Farmer woman.

On the other hand, Farmer men mostly went the way of the Dodo.

LeBrok
11-09-16, 19:30
Yes. But it was usually 2 IE men + 1 IE woman + 1 Farmer woman.

On the other hand, Farmer men mostly went the way of the Dodo. Possibly so, but the picture is more muddy than this simplification and your mathematical formula. If you came to this conclusions from looking at uniparental markers, you might come to wrong conclusions. Most dominant haplogroups in modern world come from recently quickly expanding young subclades. It is more about history of last 2 thousand years. About Slavic and Germanic expansions in Northern Europe than about Corded Ware and Cucuteni. There is a different story in Balkans and Italy with dominance of various haplogroups in different spots, though they all were dominated by IEs of mostly R1a and R1b type. Atlantic fringe is even more enigmatic with unquestionable dominance of R1b. Dominance might have started in Neolithic from local WHG with R1b haplotype, later replaced and topped up with IE Celtic R1b type.
Y DNA is so virulent that it is hard to decipher the past older than 2,000 years. To really know that you are right in your conclusion we would need to find farmer DNA right before and right after IE invasion.

Yetos
11-09-16, 20:34
All I can guess is that balkan hunter gatherers were I1.

bicicleur
11-09-16, 20:57
All I can guess is that balkan hunter gatherers were I1.

that came to my mind too

A. Papadimitriou
11-09-16, 21:33
^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

Maybe it's just that EEFs descended from Anatolian Farmers who were unadmixed with Balkan HGs.

Angela
11-09-16, 23:24
Actually, the latest "modeling" shows 30-35% and sometimes higher "Natufian" in northwestern Europeans, 35-40% in central Europeans, and starting in the low 40s in southern Europe.

The only people who get 25% are probably those in the Baltics.

The mtDna of the "Indo-European" women is hardly mostly EHG. U4 and U5 are at the most around 20% of the total and most of that wouldn't come from "Indo-European" women, which leads me to LeBroc's point.

It's been pretty clear for a while that there is more EHG (and WHG) in parts of Europe than can be explained by using an admixture of MN Central Europeans and Yamnaya. Ever since the Haak et al paper came, and thus before the modeling began to show this phenomenon, I said that the models probably over-estimated the "Indo-European" impact because there was likely a reservoir of WHG and/or EHG somewhere to the west of the steppe.

I'm not sure that the samples analyzed in this paper indicate there were "EHG" or "EHG-like" foragers in the Balkans. We'll have to wait for the paper. If they do, then it's indeed a mystery what happened to this admixed EEF/Balkan forager group. At first I thought that perhaps they contributed to Balkan and perhaps Italian genetics, if not to the rest of Europeans, but the abstract clearly says that "The hunter-gatherer admixture in the early farmers of the Balkans is not closely related to the hunter-gatherer admixture that is predominant in present-day Europeans. "

Now, it may be that they don't have a sample of this Balkan forager, but I would be very surprised if the Reich Lab can't be trusted to figure out what kind of forager ancestry went into this group. From the description it would seem to be "related to " EHG/SHG, but not precisely like them.

I don't know why anyone would say there's more EHG than WHG in Europe. That's not at all what I recall seeing in either the academic or the modeler work.

LeBrok
12-09-16, 04:09
I don't know why anyone would say there's more EHG than WHG in Europe. That's not at all what I recall seeing in either the academic or the modeler work.
Perhaps they analyzed WHG in EHG so precisely that they could recognize it as only coming and specific to EHG genome? Therefore they could say with certainty that majority of WHG portion in modern Europeans come directly from EHG.
That would be my guess.
Let's say that WHG comes from bottlenecking and refugium in Anatolia/South Balkans and started to spread from there after LGM 16 kya. Some of it stayed in Balkans and from there went to Western Europe, other part went to North East Europe and the Steppe and mixed with ANE type of Hunter Gatherer creating EHG. The split could have happened 10 ky before the EHG lived (6 kya), from which we got the samples from Russia. That's 10 thousand years of separate evolution and long enough time for independent mutations occurring helping us recognize WHG DNA being distinct in EHG, when compared to WHG in Balkans and Western Europe.

Fire Haired14
12-09-16, 05:14
I don't know why anyone would say there's more EHG than WHG in Europe. That's not at all what I recall seeing in either the academic or the modeler work.

It varies by region and model. Southern Europe(xBasque) in every model I've seen score significantly more EHG than WHG. Basque might be the only ones who for sure have as much WHG as EHG. Some models have most of Italy having less than 10% WHG and close to 20% EHG. EHG is usually more important than WHG because one Chalcolithic European ancestor Steppe was 50-60% EHG and the other Chalcolithic European ancestor MN was 10-30% WHG. There's extra WHG beyond what Chalcolithic genomes can explain, but it doesn't get as high as EHG.


It's been pretty clear for a while that there is more EHG (and WHG) in parts of Europe than can be explained by using an admixture of MN Central Europeans and Yamnaya.

I disagree. I haven't read anything suggesting excess EHG. The EHG /ANE signal in Europe is mostly Steppe, the dye was caste a long time ago. Hungary_BA(From Gamba 2014) I think likely has a lot of this Balkan_HG stuff but not modern Europeans(except maybe Balkaners). Interestingly One Hungary_BA guy(From Allentoft 2015) might be mostly WHG(Balkan_HG?) while another one had hardly any, almost a pure Anatolian EF. WHG/EEF Y DNA dominance persisted there till 2000 BC as well.

Huitzilopochtli
30-10-16, 00:06
^ That is only one of possible explanations. This may also indicate that Balkan-admixed waves of Anatolian farmers who reached northern and western Europe later got extinct, replaced by Indo-Europeans coming from Russia. Modern EEF ancestry in Europe can be mostly from Ukrainian farmers (Trypillian EEF), and HG ancestry from Ukrainian hunters (pre-Trypillian HGs). It is possible that Trypillians - despite being farmers - were heavily HG-admixed (more than farmers in the rest of Europe) and had a lot of men with I2 and I1 haplogroups. This would explain why in the Bronze Age I2 and I1 - assimilated early on by IEs - proliferated much better than G2a.

Can we rule out that I2 was an Anatolian farmer lineage? Maybe drift had made it more common among the Tripollians. If I2 is derived primarily from European hunter gatherers, could more marginal communities that relied more on hunting and were I2 heavy and G2a light have been more likely to survive the IE onslaught. Perhaps G2a guys were too dependent on farming to survive when the IE invaders turned their farmland into pasture.

LeBrok
30-10-16, 00:37
Can we rule out that I2 was an Anatolian farmer lineage? Maybe drift had made it more common among the Tripollians. If I2 is derived primarily from European hunter gatherers, could more marginal communities that relied more on hunting and were I2 heavy and G2a light have been more likely to survive the IE onslaught. Perhaps G2a guys were too dependent on farming to survive when the IE invaders turned their farmland into pasture.During Last Glacial Maximum many european hunter gatherers found refuge deep in southern Europe and Anatolia. Anatolia was the first place G2a farmers met I2 hunter gatherers and started mixing with them about 10kya. The farther North Anatolian Farmers went the more they mixed with I2 hunter gatherers, so called WHG. Definitely WHG were more genetically suited to live and survive in colder climate. Therefore the more farmers mixed with WHGs the higher their chance to survive in case of failed crops were.
I think the ultimate mix of farmer/hunter came from Yamnaya in shape of Corded Ware Culture and Bell Beaker Culture, which largely replaced Late Neolithic farmers, and dominated Northern Europe, together with their descendents, since bronze age till today.
Welcome to Eupedia Huitzilopochtli.

Hauteville
31-10-16, 16:10
Are there informations of the haplogroups?

Shetop
31-10-16, 21:17
Are there informations of the haplogroups?

Looks like early Balkan farmers were G2a: source (http://eurogenes.blogspot.bg/2016/10/ashg-2016-open-thread.html?showComment=1477173713652#c25001507524 96849419).

MOESAN
04-11-16, 15:44
I have no global answer
but I red metric anthropology saw some input of 'cromagnoids' of Dniestr-Donets region ("false neolithic") among Tripolye pop in the first times of this culture, the more among females (not so surprising!) - later this component decreased among people of Tripolye, so the (E)HGs input has not been so strong then, spite the presence of diverse HGs pops in the surroundings I think (+ Carpathians mountains by instance) - as kind of confirmation, the visible input (partly craniometric, more convincingly autosomal) of EEFlike people into some of the Steppic cultures of the LBA like Sintashta or Andronovo sites where an EEFlike component overcome the CHG/Caucasuslike one

Djordjo
05-11-16, 09:56
Hope that some E-V13 will appear

MOESAN
05-11-16, 13:52
for the HG 's part I would bet for Y-I ancestors of I2a1a and I2a1b + maybe some I1 + surely some E-V13 but who knows for sure?

rafc
05-11-16, 15:59
If I read the abstract correctly it seems the samples analyzed date from the onset of the Neolithicum. If so I would be very surprised if any V13 was present. It's parent M78 would be a safer bet.

MOESAN
05-11-16, 16:48
If I read the abstract correctly it seems the samples analyzed date from the onset of the Neolithicum. If so I would be very surprised if any V13 was present. It's parent M78 would be a safer bet.

True. I anticipated to downstream SNPs? but V13 was present about 5000 BC in Iberia,and is well present today in North Africa (Lybia). Perhaps older than believed?