PDA

View Full Version : Cultural rather than demographic Neolithization in Eastern Europe



Tomenable
14-09-16, 15:18
Another lesson showing that it is better to avoid sweeping generalizations based on snippets of data. This paper is specifically about North-Eastern Europe (the Baltic region), but I suppose that people of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine will also turn out to be much more Euro HG and much less of Non-Euro immigrant ancestry than more westerly Neolithic groups:


The Neolithic Transition at the Edge of Europe

Jones et al.

In Europe, the Neolithic transition marked the beginning of a period of innovations which saw people move from a mobile lifestyle, dependent on hunting and gathering for survival, to a more sedentary way of life based on food production. This new lifeway, which began in the Near East ~11 kya, spread quickly across the continental interior of Europe predominantly through demic diffusion.

While the genetic impact of the Neolithic transition has been well explored in central Europe, its impact on more peripheral regions of the continent has not been as extensively studied. To broaden our understanding of this dynamic phase in European prehistory, we analysed genomes from a 4,000 year temporal transect through the Baltic region spanning from the Late Mesolithic to the Late Neolithic period. We found evidence for connectivity from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic however, we also detected signals consistent with influxes from non-local populations. These influences were distinct from the early farmer admixture which transformed the genetic landscape of central Europe during the Neolithic. Interestingly, dietary stable isotope analyses (δ15N and δ 13C) show that the genetic shifts coincide with diversifications in subsistence strategy. These results suggest that the Neolithic was a period of genetic flux in the Baltic however, the cultural and technological changes observed were largely independent of forager-farmer genetic exchange.

berun
14-09-16, 16:01
The abstract is saying what it is already known: EEF were geneticaly different of the CWC which peopled the Baltics.

LeBrok
14-09-16, 16:16
Another lesson showing that it is better to avoid sweeping generalizations based on snippets of data. This paper is specifically about North-Eastern Europe (the Baltic region), but I suppose that people of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine will also turn out to be much more Euro HG and much less of Non-Euro immigrant ancestry than more westerly Neolithic groups:
It is so disappointing that to push your anti farmer agenda you even cherry pick sentences in introduction.

show that the genetic shifts coincide with diversifications in subsistence strategy. These results suggest that the Neolithic was a period of genetic flux in the Baltic however,
Are you saying that farmers came but forgot how to farm? Forgot their technologies?

Tomenable
14-09-16, 16:30
LeBrok,

You were the one claiming that all farmers were genetically the same and only one group ever switched to farming.

As ancient DNA from the Middle East shows - that claim was wrong. There were several genetically very distinct groups of hunter-gatherers, who became farmers without even mixing with each other (e.g. Levantines, Iranians and Anatolians).

This paper about Baltic Neolithic shows that there was yet another group - because no Anatolian admixture was found:


we also detected signals consistent with influxes from non-local populations. These influences were distinct from the early farmer admixture which transformed the genetic landscape of central Europe during the Neolithic.

So the whole Farmer Supremacy agenda claiming that without having "farmer genes" you cannot farm, is falling apart.

Goga
14-09-16, 17:10
Neolithization of the Steppes occurred by incoming farmers from Iran - South Central Asia (Eastern parts of the Iranian Plateau) and not from Anatolia or Levant...

Neolithization of Southern and Central Europe occurred by incoming farmers from Anatolia.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27459054

Goga
14-09-16, 17:21
Neolithization of the Steppes occurred by incoming farmers from South Central Asia (Eastern parts of the Iranian Plateau) and not from Anatolia or Levant...

Neolithization of Southern Europe occurred by incoming farmers from Anatolia or Levant.From Harvard site:


" Farmers related to the Anatolian group spread west into Europe, people related to the Levant group moved south into East Africa, people related to those in Iran or the Caucasus went north into the Russian steppe, and people related to both the farmers in Iran and hunter-gatherers from the steppe spread into South Asia. "

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/meet-first-farmers



" The descendants of these early farmers went separate ways. Whereas the western Anatolians later migrated to Europe, Reich's team proposes that the ancient farmers of the Levant migrated to East Africa, where living people carry some of their distinct DNA, and the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia. "

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27459054

Alpenjager
14-09-16, 17:35
LeBrok,

You were the one claiming that all farmers were genetically the same and only one group ever switched to farming.

As ancient DNA from the Middle East shows - that claim was wrong. There were several genetically very distinct groups of hunter-gatherers, who became farmers without even mixing with each other (e.g. Levantines, Iranians and Anatolians).

This paper about Baltic Neolithic shows that there was yet another group - because no Anatolian admixture was found:



So the whole Farmer Supremacy agenda claiming that without having "farmer genes" you cannot farm, is falling apart.

Natufians (Hunters from Levant) belong to E1b. After farmer migration into the Levant, we find H2 and T1* (xT1a1, T1a2, T1a3a) together with non-natufian autosomal admixture. Where you found HG Levantines became "Farmers" without non-natufian admixture?

epoch
14-09-16, 18:04
From Harvard site:


" Farmers related to the Anatolian group spread west into Europe, people related to the Levant group moved south into East Africa, people related to those in Iran or the Caucasus went north into the Russian steppe, and people related to both the farmers in Iran and hunter-gatherers from the steppe spread into South Asia. "

http://hms.harvard.edu/news/meet-first-farmers



" The descendants of these early farmers went separate ways. Whereas the western Anatolians later migrated to Europe, Reich's team proposes that the ancient farmers of the Levant migrated to East Africa, where living people carry some of their distinct DNA, and the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia. "

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/07/worlds-first-farmers-were-surprisingly-diverse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27459054



David at Eurogenes modeled it Half EHG, a third CHG and the remainder something like Anatolia and came up with a pretty good fit. I like it because it would mean admixture by neighbour groups (CHG, Cucutine-Trypolje) that both have been thought of a great influences to either Yamnaya (CT) or Indo-European culture (Caucasian), so it doesn't needs that strange thing that you propose, to wit that the more closeby CHG didn't contribute as much as remote Zagros farmers.

The good part of that post is that Iosif Lazaridis actually courteously posted a reply:


Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/yamnaya-eastern-hunter-gatherers-iran.html

epoch
14-09-16, 18:11
It is so disappointing that to push your anti farmer agenda you even cherry pick sentences in introduction.

Are you saying that farmers came but forgot how to farm? Forgot their technologies?

The neolithic in the Baltic was introduced by Corded Ware Culture, which was mostly Yamnaya and thus substantially different from Anatolians.

Goga
14-09-16, 18:12
David at Eurogenes modeled it Half EHG, a third CHG and the remainder something like Anatolia and came up with a pretty good fit. I like it because it would mean admixture by neighbour groups (CHG, Cucutine-Trypolje) that both have been thought of a great influences to either Yamnaya (CT) or Indo-European culture (Caucasian), so it doesn't needs that strange thing that you propose, to wit that the more closeby CHG didn't contribute as much as remote Zagros farmers.

The good part of that post is that Iosif Lazaridis actually courteously posted a reply:



http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/yamnaya-eastern-hunter-gatherers-iran.htmlDavid is a Polish 'durak'. I don't take him seriously for even less than 1%.


It is not 'my' proposal. But it is what the current established academia is thinking. All those most recent articles at the Harvard university about this issue are not written by me, lol.


It is not what David, you or I like. It is all about what science is telling us...

Goga
14-09-16, 18:18
IMO it is very plausible that during the Neolithization process of the Steppes it was the time when R1a-S224 (R1a1a1b) entered Eastern Europe from the Iranian Plateau.


Then R1a ancestors of European R1a-Z282 mixed with the native N1c1 & Q population of the Balitcs and other peripheral areas in Eastern Europe

Goga
14-09-16, 18:29
The neolithic in the Baltic was introduced by Corded Ware Culture, which was mostly Yamnaya and thus substantially different from Anatolians.
However it is true that the peripheral areas in the Balitcs (native homeland of Y-DNA hg. N1C1 & Q likes) are the LEAST Neolithized and Indo-Europeanized areas of the Indo-European speaking world.

Goga
14-09-16, 18:40
IMO it is very plausible that during the Neolithization process of the Steppes it was the time when R1a-S224 (R1a1a1b) entered Eastern Europe from the Iranian Plateau.


Then R1a ancestors of European R1a-Z282 mixed with the native N1c1 & Q population of the Balitcs and other peripheral areas in Eastern Europe
Due to the bottleneck effect the farmer R1a hg. exploded among the population of peripheral areas in a very short time. That's why most R1a folks in Eastern Europe share common ancestors who lived not so long time ago and actually during the Neolithization of the Steppes..

Angela
14-09-16, 18:54
Perhaps it would be best to wait for the paper. This is a more than unusually cryptic abstract.

However, I don't see anything in the abstract stating that agriculture was adopted through acculturation by the presumably WHG or SHG inhabitants of the Baltics. I'm not saying that might not be the case, but there's no proof of that presented in the abstract.

So, if anyone is jumping the gun to generalize from a snippet of information, it would seem to be the OP.

They specifically say that the transition occurred during a period of genetic flux. It's just that the genetic inflow doesn't seem to have been from the farming communities of central Europe.

I agree with the following:



Epoch: The neolithic in the Baltic was introduced by Corded Ware Culture, which was mostly Yamnaya and thus substantially different from Anatolians.

The bolding is mine. Corded Ware did contain EEF to some degree, although I'm sure there was variation in the amount from group to group.

I'd also add that I've been saying since the original big Lazaridis paper, as has LeBroc, that there very probably may have been a large reservoir of WHG, and perhaps EHG, in certain areas, that experienced a transition to farming and metallurgy at the same time. That might inflate the supposed admixture figures for "Indo-European" input.

arvistro
14-09-16, 19:41
However it is true that the peripheral areas in the Balitcs (native homeland of Y-DNA hg. N1C1 & Q likes) are the LEAST Neolithized and Indo-Europeanized areas of the Indo-European speaking world.
Goga is back :)))))))

I will save your quote for after data from East Baltic adna gets published :) Which I hope is going to be rather sooner than later....

arvistro
14-09-16, 19:45
and much less of Non-Euro immigrant ancestry than more westerly Neolithic groups:
Man....


Ok, on topic. I am not sure how this paper says it was cultural not genetic. I am rather convinced CW (or GAC for that matter) that brought agriculture to Baltics made a lot of genetic impact too.

epoch
14-09-16, 20:17
David is a Polish 'durak'. I don't take him seriously for even less than 1%.


It is not 'my' proposal. But it is what the current established academia is thinking. All those most recent articles at the Harvard university about this issue are not written by me, lol.


It is not what David, you or I like. It is all about what science is telling us...

Let me explain this a tad better: The author of the Reich lab article you refer to - Iosif Lazaridis - took the time to respond on Davids blog. So you may not take him seriously, the current established academia certainly does to a far larger extent.

His model: http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html

epoch
14-09-16, 20:31
Perhaps it would be best to wait for the paper. This is a more than unusually cryptic abstract.

However, I don't see anything in the abstract stating that agriculture was adopted through acculturation by the presumably WHG or SHG inhabitants of the Baltics. I'm not saying that might not be the case, but there's no proof of that presented in the abstract.

So, if anyone is jumping the gun to generalize from a snippet of information, it would seem to be the OP.

They specifically say that the transition occurred during a period of genetic flux. It's just that the genetic inflow doesn't seem to have been from the farming communities of central Europe.

I agree with the following:




The bolding is mine. Corded Ware did contain EEF to some degree, although I'm sure there was variation in the amount from group to group.

I'd also add that I've been saying since the original big Lazaridis paper, as has LeBroc, that there very probably may have been a large reservoir of WHG, and perhaps EHG, in certain areas, that experienced a transition to farming and metallurgy at the same time. That might inflate the supposed admixture figures for "Indo-European" input.

We don't know if Ertebölla and Swifterband are WHG cultures that ran parallel to LBK. But I am willing to bet a months salary they were as they showed very little, very slow adaptation to agriculture, a very extensive fishing and hunting culture and a habit of keeping (probably herding, masting) pigs. From the Pitted Ware cultures which are extremely similar we know they are HG continuation.

EDIT: We have the example of KO1, a Neolithic WHG sample from Hungary. Furthermore we see an increase in WHG admixture in Iberians MN samples as well as in MN German and Swedish samples. Also, Allentoft needed yet an extra shot of WHG at the start of the Late Neolithic. Those extra admixtures had to come from somewhere.

Goga
14-09-16, 21:09
Let me explain this a tad better: The author of the Reich lab article you refer to - Iosif Lazaridis - took the time to respond on Davids blog. So you may not take him seriously, the current established academia certainly does to a far larger extent.

His model: http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html
I'm sure you are acquainted with the fact that Reich lab article was published AFTER Iosif Lazaridis made his comments, right??

I don't see any serious issues to what folks from Harvard are proposing. By the time when Neolithic farmers entered the Steppes, those Iranian Neolithic farmers were already mixed and were not fully 'Iran Chalcolithics' like their ancestors who lived thousands of years before them.

By the time when Neolithic farmer entered the Steppes from the Eastern Parts of the Iranian Plateau (Turkmenistan area), those Neolithic farmers were already mixed with the CHG-kind of people on the Iranian Plateau. People on the Iranian Plateau gradually changed and influenced by incoming folks who lived west to them.




Sure, the current established academia is certainly much broader than Harvard university, but that Polish durak David is not part of it and will never be part of it, he has neither the education nor analytical skills (IQ) for it. Whith other words that Polish durak David fella is nothing and nobody. I don't pay any attention to farts of nobodies...

Goga
14-09-16, 21:26
Repetition of lies doesn't make something a fact by the end of the day. People can repeat their lies and propaganda as much as they want and invest a lot of time (years) in their lies, but at the end of the day the truth and true science will defeat and sweep those lies out in one millisecond of time. This is why I love science!

MarkoZ
15-09-16, 02:10
The archeological record alone makes it obvious that farming techniques diffused rather rapidly across the Dniepr-Don and Comb Ceramic horizons. Even some of the northernmost Pit-Comb settlements reveal that farming accounted for up to 50% of the inhabitants' sustenance with no traces of accompanying migrations.

What puzzles me however is how the populations along the Baltic shores developed from Corded Ware moving into a sort of terra nullius. There must have been a significant shift towards a population with increased Basal Eurasian affinity later on. Did this happen with the circum-Baltic spread of the Baltic languages? Do we have samples in this region from, say, the very late Bronze age to Iron age and/or evidence pointing to discontinuities in settlement to test this?

Angela
15-09-16, 03:38
The archeological record alone makes it obvious that farming techniques diffused rather rapidly across the Dniepr-Don and Comb Ceramic horizons. Even some of the northernmost Pit-Comb settlements reveal that farming accounted for up to 50% of the inhabitants' sustenance with no traces of accompanying migrations.

What puzzles me however is how the populations along the Baltic shores developed from Corded Ware moving into a sort of terra nulla. There must have been a significant shift towards a population with increased Basal Eurasian affinity later on. Did this happen with the circum-Baltic spread of the Baltic languages? Do we have samples in this region from, say, the very late Bronze age to Iron age and/or evidence pointing to discontinuities in settlement to test this?

Do you have some citations you could provide for the highlighted statements? When did agriculture spread to these areas and in what context?

Fire Haired14
15-09-16, 04:17
Tomenable, the East Baltic Neolithic was still HG-genetically because farmers never settled there. They didn't enter the Neolithic as Western Europe did, by the settlement of foreign farmers. So the East Baltic doesn't prove we made generalizations. We've all suspected hunter gatherers remained there unaffected by farmers till 2000-3000 BC for years now.

Fire Haired14
15-09-16, 05:16
Then R1a ancestors of European R1a-Z282 mixed with the native N1c1 & Q population of the Balitcs and other peripheral areas in Eastern Europe

You're ignoring aDNA data. EHG was mostly R1a/b.

Fire Haired14
15-09-16, 05:34
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

LeBrok
15-09-16, 06:21
LeBrok,

You were the one claiming that all farmers were genetically the same and only one group ever switched to farming. \ Never. Please site me saying otherwise.



As ancient DNA from the Middle East shows - that claim was wrong. There were several genetically very distinct groups of hunter-gatherers, who became farmers without even mixing with each other (e.g. Levantines, Iranians and Anatolians). Yes and Chinese and some groups in America like Mayans. It was never a secret.

The point which you didn't grasp is that no HG group can change to farming from only cultural/learning aspect. To change from HG to farmers, on its own, takes couple of thousands of years, because genetic adaptation to farming needs to happen. If you are HG and you want your kids to farm, marry a farmer, so your kids have farming genes.




This paper about Baltic Neolithic shows that there was yet another group - because no Anatolian admixture was found
Was does this mean?
we also detected signals consistent with influxes from non-local populationsNeolithic Iranian Farmer?



So the whole Farmer Supremacy agenda claiming that without having "farmer genes" you cannot farm, is falling apart.This is your weird way to see the world. The supremacy, the superior, the better, etc. I just see patterns. That's all.

LeBrok
15-09-16, 06:26
Natufians (Hunters from Levant) belong to E1b. After farmer migration into the Levant, we find H2 and T1* (xT1a1, T1a2, T1a3a) together with non-natufian autosomal admixture. Where you found HG Levantines became "Farmers" without non-natufian admixture?You are confusing uniparental DNA with autosomal DNA and its admixtures. Anatolian Farmers had at least 50% of Natufian admixture.

LeBrok
15-09-16, 06:41
The neolithic in the Baltic was introduced by Corded Ware Culture, which was mostly Yamnaya and thus substantially different from Anatolians.Yes. They also had 10-15% of EEF, and also should have some Iranian Neolithic too. I would guess about 30% farmer genes. Steppe_MLBA was 45% Iranian/Anatolian Farmer.

Fire Haired14
15-09-16, 07:27
@Lebrok,

A btw; Corded Ware was more Near Eastern than Yamnaya and definitely more farmer descended because many of Yamnaya's Near Eastern ancestors could have been hunter gatherers.

berun
15-09-16, 07:47
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

SibHG?
.....

arvistro
15-09-16, 08:39
SibHG?
.....
You mean EHG?

Fire Haired14
15-09-16, 08:45
You mean EHG?

Please don't tell anyone what I told you.

arvistro
15-09-16, 09:07
I have my own sources ;)
Which matched with your sources :)

But in general I would suggest to read any Raisa Denisova work on Baltic anthropology. It is all there.

arvistro
15-09-16, 09:34
I also have promissed my source to not spill the beens, but of course it is hard :)
In meantime you can check this by Raisa:
http://estudijas.lu.lv/mod/page/view.php?id=30367
You need to "reģistrēties kā viesim" (register as guest) to access further info in English. It is extremely helpful when discussing matters of Baltic anthropology.

berun
15-09-16, 10:01
You mean EHG?

Nope, Siberia is not in Europe...

Volat
15-09-16, 10:02
Can anyone with insider information shade light on when the paper or pre-print will be available on aDNA of the Baltic region? Few months? Six months?

Volat
15-09-16, 10:05
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

Defy in genome-wide comparison or in terms of Y-DNA structure? Elaborate please.:)

Goga
15-09-16, 13:48
You're ignoring aDNA data. EHG was mostly R1a/b.Don't think so. EHG auDNA is pretty younger and recent, while R1a/b is at least tens of thousands of years old. Y-DNA haplogroups predate all modern auDNA...

Or do you think than EHG auDNA component is 30,000 years old?

R1* & R2 are maybe related to more ancient ANE or something like ANE, but ANE something is partly ancestral to EHG..

So R1*, R1b, R2 is also very much related and connected to the Iranian Plateau.


EHG auDNA is as much related to Y-DNA hg. N1, Q etc. as to hg. R1a..


EHG auDNA component = Mongoloid + Caucasoid lineages..


It is also possible that over time auDNA of Y-DNA hg. R1a could be deluted in the Steppes.

Tomenable
15-09-16, 14:39
EHG auDNA is as much related to Y-DNA hg. N1 There is no N1 in EHG samples. The oldest N1 in Europe is from 2500 BC from a Late Neolithic farmer-fisher who lived near Smolensk.

Goga
15-09-16, 15:24
There is no N1 in EHG samples. The oldest N1 in Europe is from 2500 BC from a Late Neolithic farmer-fisher who lived near Smolensk.
What do you mean by 'Europe'? Everything west of Wolga river? If so, then more than 75% of Russia is not Europe but Asia. Are Russians European? At least 25% of Russians do belong to hg. N1c1. Are Finns Europeans, because more than 60% of the Finns are Y-DNA hg. N1c1. In the Baltics it is more than 40 %. Hg. N1* and Q are native to the Eurasian Steppes, Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia, while very exotic in Western Europe and West Asia brought by the Turanic people.

From the latest DNA paper of the Steppes, they found Y-DNA lineages that are exotic in West Asia and SouthWestern Europe and do almost not exist there..


Don't you see the link? everywhere where is lots of hg. N1c1 there is lots of EHG auDNA. In Finland there is ONLY 5% of R1a and 4% R1b, while in Spain there is 70% R1b!!! Finland has more EHG than Spain, how is it possible?

The fact that EHG is low in Spain, while there is more than 70% of R1b in Spain, means that R1b* has NOTHING to do with EHG...


EHG is NOT related to R1b and R1a, because if EHG was related to R1b there would be much more EHG in Spain than in Finland.


There where EHG is high, hg. N1 and Q percentages are also very high.


auDNA is just more than 1 Y-DNA or mt-DNA. auDNA is a combination of many Y-DNA & mt-DNA haplogroups.


EHG is related to N1 & Q as much as to R1a. That's why EHG auDNA component is partly a 'Mongoloid' partly 'Caucasoid' component that came into existense when 'Mongoloid' and 'Caucasoid' Y-DNA & mtDNA haplogroups mixed with each other.


EHG auDNA is hybrid and much, much more mixed than WHG, CHG and IranianPlateau auDNA.



IMO the most pure and "Caucasoid" auDNA is CHG !!!!

Angela
15-09-16, 15:38
David at Eurogenes modeled it Half EHG, a third CHG and the remainder something like Anatolia and came up with a pretty good fit. I like it because it would mean admixture by neighbour groups (CHG, Cucutine-Trypolje) that both have been thought of a great influences to either Yamnaya (CT) or Indo-European culture (Caucasian), so it doesn't needs that strange thing that you propose, to wit that the more closeby CHG didn't contribute as much as remote Zagros farmers.

The good part of that post is that Iosif Lazaridis actually courteously posted a reply:



http://eurogenes.blogspot.nl/2016/06/yamnaya-eastern-hunter-gatherers-iran.html

I've never understood one thing about this argument: who says that the CHG still existed as a separate population at the time that this admixture took place?

Just because using an ancient group gets an ok fit in these stats doesn't mean it makes sense. Goodness, look at all the "great fits" for admixtures that were produced which turned out never to have happened.

As for the periodic interventions from the Reich Lab, they strike me as just that: interventions. They pop in when people are running around in circles. Of course, they can't reveal what's going to be in their papers, so they're often very cryptic. I wouldn't take it as a ringing endorsement of the conclusions, far less the unsavory associations of some of the people involved.

As to gene flow from "Old Europe" onto the steppe, I think it did take place, but I've yet to be convinced it reached the eastern part of the Yamnaya horizon from which we have most of our samples.

Olympus Mons
15-09-16, 16:05
I've never understood one thing about this argument: who says that the CHG still existed as a separate population at the time that this admixture took place?

Just because using an ancient group gets an ok fit in these stats doesn't mean it makes sense. Goodness, look at all the "great fits" for admixtures that were produced which turned out never to have happened.

.


Angela, Exactly, Exactly.
So What Culture brought CHG to steppe?

Angela
15-09-16, 16:54
Originally Posted by MarkoZ http://cdn.eupedia.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?p=489839#post489839)
The archeological record alone makes it obvious that farming techniques diffused rather rapidly across the Dniepr-Don and Comb Ceramic horizons. Even some of the northernmost Pit-Comb settlements reveal that farming accounted for up to 50% of the inhabitants' sustenance with no traces of accompanying migrations.

What puzzles me however is how the populations along the Baltic shores developed from Corded Ware moving into a sort of terra nulla. There must have been a significant shift towards a population with increased Basal Eurasian affinity later on. Did this happen with the circum-Baltic spread of the Baltic languages? Do we have samples in this region from, say, the very late Bronze age to Iron age and/or evidence pointing to discontinuities in settlement to test this?




Angela: Do you have some citations you could provide for the highlighted statements? When did agriculture spread to these areas and in what context?

Most of what I've seen written on Pitted Ware is very skeptical that they ever took up farming at all. Some have speculated it's even a different group of people who moved into the area from further east.

See, for example this 2016 book on the spread of domesticated animals in Europe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=K69mDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=Did+Pitted+Ware+have+agriculture&source=bl&ots=17NitkjkvI&sig=oz4NtIVRG08ezxLy-thFDiWqlmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI2fLQlZDPAhWMNj4KHbHgDXQQ6AEIOTAE#v=on epage&q=Did%20Pitted%20Ware%20have%20agriculture&f=false

So, as of now I'm still of the opinion that farming came to the Baltic very late, and with actual farmers.

I'm ready to be persuaded otherwise, however.

MOESAN
15-09-16, 17:38
Perhaps it would be best to wait for the paper. This is a more than unusually cryptic abstract.

However, I don't see anything in the abstract stating that agriculture was adopted through acculturation by the presumably WHG or SHG inhabitants of the Baltics. I'm not saying that might not be the case, but there's no proof of that presented in the abstract.

So, if anyone is jumping the gun to generalize from a snippet of information, it would seem to be the OP.

They specifically say that the transition occurred during a period of genetic flux. It's just that the genetic inflow doesn't seem to have been from the farming communities of central Europe.

I agree with the following:




The bolding is mine. Corded Ware did contain EEF to some degree, although I'm sure there was variation in the amount from group to group.

I'd also add that I've been saying since the original big Lazaridis paper, as has LeBroc, that there very probably may have been a large reservoir of WHG, and perhaps EHG, in certain areas, that experienced a transition to farming and metallurgy at the same time. That might inflate the supposed admixture figures for "Indo-European" input.

Without having the ambition to ask you in marriage, I must say your "cooling down" is welcome! Let's read only what is written. We can disagree about what is written (perhaps?), why disgaree about what is not? LOL. Even Balts have EEFlike admixture today, and it has to come from somewhere and CT-C is a good bet for providers through CWC maybe, even if this element is rather low in % in Balts pops. It is surely a bit higher among Slavs spite not overwhelming.

MOESAN
15-09-16, 18:01
ancient pops: A, B, C, D
between pops: '1', '2', '3' ...
modern pops &, $, £
if 1 is 50/50 A+B, and say 2 is C
if & is 25 A, 25 B and 50 C, how can we be sure without more accurate testings (IBD) that :
& is admixture of 50 C+25 A+25 B > or < 50 C+50 '1' ??? this a simplistic approach I know but I shows the problem I think (things could be very more complicated with '&' having at diverse periods inherited from C, &, A or/and B ...

Angela
15-09-16, 18:42
Without having the ambition to ask you in marriage, I must say your "cooling down" is welcome! Let's read only what is written. We can disagree about what is written (perhaps?), why disgaree about what is not? LOL. Even Balts have EEFlike admixture today, and it has to come from somewhere and CT-C is a good bet for providers through CWC maybe, even if this element is rather low in % in Balts pops. It is surely a bit higher among Slavs spite not overwhelming.

That's ok...mutual collegial respect will more than do. It certainly exists from my end. :)

I'm rather "off" marriage, anyway, at this stage of my life...been there, done that...never would do it again. :)

MOESAN
15-09-16, 22:12
Angela you broke my heart! The fact is I'm with my second wife and I think I'll stop here my collection. I remind a breton joke where it's question of dead people presented to Sant Petrus (Saint Pierre), and tailing: two men with lives far to have been respectuous of God laws: the first find as excuse he had a wife: S-P opens him the Paradise door. The second, having heard what had been said to the first, said immediately: "I have been married two times"; S-P: "Straigth away to Hell: there is no place in Paradise for stupid persons!" I confess (it's the right term here) I feel a bit unquiet now.

MarkoZ
16-09-16, 01:01
Most of what I've seen written on Pitted Ware is very skeptical that they ever took up farming at all. Some have speculated it's even a different group of people who moved into the area from further east.

See, for example this 2016 book on the spread of domesticated animals in Europe.

https://books.google.com/books?id=K69mDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA303&lpg=PA303&dq=Did+Pitted+Ware+have+agriculture&source=bl&ots=17NitkjkvI&sig=oz4NtIVRG08ezxLy-thFDiWqlmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiI2fLQlZDPAhWMNj4KHbHgDXQQ6AEIOTAE#v=on epage&q=Did%20Pitted%20Ware%20have%20agriculture&f=false

So, as of now I'm still of the opinion that farming came to the Baltic very late, and with actual farmers.

I'm ready to be persuaded otherwise, however.

While I agree with your views regarding the late arrival of farming in Pitted Ware and the ultimate eastern provenience of the HG cultures in the North-East, I was talking about the Dnepr-Don and Comb-Ceramic cultures that lie further east. The earliest arrival of agriculture in the northern Baltic was found in the Estonian Narva complex.

Further south the early traces of agriculture date as far back as Bug-Dniestr in the fifth millennium B.C. according to Dolukhanov. Ivanova holds that the cultures centered around Azov and the Don adopted farming more than 1000 years later, usually to supply their fish-game based diet with grain produce. I am not aware of any signs of concomitant movements of people, but I should probably retract my earlier poorly-worded statement to the effect that there was no population exchange whatsoever. These things are notoriously hard to track in archaeology as we have seen before.

epoch
18-09-16, 08:47
I've never understood one thing about this argument: who says that the CHG still existed as a separate population at the time that this admixture took place?

Just because using an ancient group gets an ok fit in these stats doesn't mean it makes sense. Goodness, look at all the "great fits" for admixtures that were produced which turned out never to have happened.

Fair enough, I agree. However, that also happened to fits in papers. Furthermore, in the PCA of the CHG paper Yamnaya pulls toward EEF.


As for the periodic interventions from the Reich Lab, they strike me as just that: interventions. They pop in when people are running around in circles. Of course, they can't reveal what's going to be in their papers, so they're often very cryptic. I wouldn't take it as a ringing endorsement of the conclusions, far less the unsavory associations of some of the people involved.

As to gene flow from "Old Europe" onto the steppe, I think it did take place, but I've yet to be convinced it reached the eastern part of the Yamnaya horizon from which we have most of our samples.

If David were just a blogger I would agree, but his findings often agree with papers: Take for instance traces of ANE in Han.

MOESAN
18-09-16, 16:18
I don't know too much what to do with this but:
papers about neolithic mt-DNA and the today pops mt-DNA proximity to it show everytime some constant facts:
- Basques, Gascons and Cantabrians are among the less close to Near-Eastern mt;
- Balts, Estonians: the same statement
- at the contrary a region I place between Bela-Russia and Moscow and maybe a bit around Moscow show always more proximity to first farmers and Near-East concerning the diverse Neolithic mt lignages. I first thought it could be a recent enough effect of Moscow attraction on people of Caucasus and surroundings but it's strange that the most of Ukraina, closer to Caucasus and very important economically (Don region industries) shows nevertheless less proximity to farmers and Near-East. than this W-Moscow region.
&: about subsequent neolithical culture of Hungary/Carpathian Bassin before the Metals: a not too new but detailed paper by Anna Szécsényi-Nagy (I had red only short abstract with graphic); interesting fact: the late Neol BL (Balaton-Lasinga culture) shows reinforcing of mt-T1a after its almost fading out, and global mt-DNA closer to South-Levant, Egypt, and Lybia.
that said, concerning C-T C input in North I recall that whatever their value some admixture poolings show Balts have more 'sardinian', less 'basque' and almost no 'gedrosia' compared to Scandinavians and Northwesterners of Europe. So maybe few farmers females in TODAY Baltic (reduced) lands but the little EEF auDNA (males?) was maybe rather CTC than South-East Caspian farmers.

epoch
19-09-16, 10:46
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

GoyetQ116-1 admixture?

Arame
25-09-16, 09:54
The confusion comes from the different meaning that is put in the term "Neolithic". In ex Soviet countries Neolithic doesn't automatically means farming. It can mean hunter gatherers with pottery. For example the Neolithic R1a in Baikal region was not a farmer he was a hunter gatherer. I suppose in Baltic countries this classification is retained. The Combed ware culture was a HG with pottery but without farming. As far as I know the real farming came there only with CWC which we already know was very different from HGs.

arvistro
25-09-16, 11:49
GoyetQ116-1 admixture?
It defies FireHaired geography :)
Read my Raisa Andrejeva link if you want to know what to expect from East Baltic and (in future) East European pre-CW.

Olympus Mons
25-09-16, 13:54
It defies FireHaired geography :)
Read my Raisa Andrejeva link if you want to know what to expect from East Baltic and (in future) East European pre-CW.

Arvisto,
What she is saying is what for instance A V Zubova is saying for the last 5 years, right? that those Karelia like people went as far south as poland and the Balkans and that specific non metric dental traits, therefore genetics, is seen as far East as south siberia in the Baraba forest itself in later periods and even in a specific site in South Turkmenistan. So, that EHG baltic people that were the same as the Samara HG.

If someone is looking for "how" the Steppe got Agriculture and Caucasus Admixture, just remember rule number one in humans. They follow Kinship! And surely there were Kin in south Turkmenistan to teach cousins up north and being so close to Iran agriculture there had to be some Admixture between those populations.

Too bad people don't follow non metric Dental traits. A lot of answers are in there aswell.

arvistro
25-09-16, 14:33
You will have to read her yourself.
I will quote samples of her text, but only after study results comes out.

LeBrok
25-09-16, 17:53
The confusion comes from the different meaning that is put in the term "Neolithic". In ex Soviet countries Neolithic doesn't automatically means farming. It can mean hunter gatherers with pottery. For example the Neolithic R1a in Baikal region was not a farmer he was a farmer. I suppose in Baltic countries this classification retained. They Combed ware culture that HG with pottery but without farming. As far as I know the real farming came there only with CWC which we already was very different from HGs.Thanks Arame for reminding all of this simple fact.

Arame
27-09-16, 09:51
OMG
I made so many errors with phone typing. I corrected them now.

MOESAN
30-09-16, 13:53
We don't know if Ertebölla and Swifterband are WHG cultures that ran parallel to LBK. But I am willing to bet a months salary they were as they showed very little, very slow adaptation to agriculture, a very extensive fishing and hunting culture and a habit of keeping (probably herding, masting) pigs. From the Pitted Ware cultures which are extremely similar we know they are HG continuation.


Interestingly enough at the individual level, some Pitted Ware people show LIGHT southern input in their auDNA, showing contacts but number dominance of HGs genes,spite inequal individually. I don't know but I suppose a slight TRBK input among them. Just a nuance.

MOESAN
30-09-16, 14:25
Based on the abstract I cannot say but the east and south Baltic neolithisation could have been produced more by CWC than by TRBK, so distinct from Scandinavia neolithisation question. I cannot obtain the full text to judge. When I say CWC I forget the immediate predecessor (if I'm not wrong), GAC: we could suppose also CWC is a spreading westwards and eastwards of people weakly or strongly distinct but influenced by this culture? Could GAC be the link between Tripolye-Cucuteni (EEF = 'anatolian' + something else undifined to date) and future CWC dominantly of Steppes origin : (demicly: heavy EHG, light and diversified CHG: robust CHG of North Caucasus, ancient + less robust CHG of South Caucasus/East Iran, newer, agricultors?); physically Tripolye has not been static: firstly influence of HGs females upon an 'anatolian' component - after; dilution of this HGs influence - later: more HG's?

Rethel
01-10-16, 19:45
So the whole Farmer Supremacy agenda claiming that without having "farmer genes" you cannot farm, is falling apart.

It was obvious since ever...

Brennos
02-10-16, 09:41
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

I'm not sure, but, for me, we will see some J1 and/or J2 males and M females.

Brennos
23-10-16, 21:46
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

Only a question: will the result change our idea about population movements?