PDA

View Full Version : Southern Neolithic route brought Megaliths from the Levant to Western Europe



Maciamo
20-01-17, 12:35
I have hypothesised for several years that the wave of Neolithic farmers who came from the southern Levant through North Africa brought a quite different set of haplogroups and autosomal admixture than the Anatolian farmers that colonised the Balkans and Central Europe.

There is ample archaeological evidence that megaliths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith) originated in the southern Levant (Israel) and Egypt and spread via the south coast of the Mediterranean to Malta, Andalusia (La Almagra Pottery culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Almagra_pottery)) and southern Portugal (Algarve), then spread north along the Atlantic coast of Europe to Brittany, the British Isles, and east to inland France, Corsica, Germany, Belgium and Denmark.

I noticed that samples from the Funnelbeaker culture (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/funnelbeaker_culture.shtml) in Scandinavia, which was a Megalithic culture, had an inordinate amount of Sub-Saharan African autosomal DNA (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33084-African-admixture-in-ancient-Germanic-Scandinavian-people). That made me wonder how it could have got there. My explanation was that it came from Iberian Megalithic people, who in turn got it from Neolithic farmers from North Africa.

As the phylogenetic trees of Y-haplogroups are getting deeper year after year, it is becoming easier to retrace ancient migrations.

Y-DNA haplogroups

In my opinion, these farmers belonged to Y-haplogroups T1a, R1b-V88, E1b1b, and a few specific G2a and J1 subclades.

Haplogroup T1a was found in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jordan. Its expansion age dates from the Early Neolithic and its modern distribution in the Middle East suggests a stronger association with the Fertile Crescent and Southwest Asia than with Anatolia. After analysing the T1a phylogeography (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades), it struck me that the subclades dating from the Neolithic that were found in Europe were also typically found in the Arabian peninsula and sometimes also East and North Africa. This is the case of T1a1a1a1-CTS2214 (found in Southwest Asia, East Africa and western Europe), T1a1a1b1-Y12643 (found in the Arabian peninsula and western Europe), and T1a1a1b2-Y22559 (found in North Africa and Iberia). Considering that only two T1a samples were so far found in Neolithic Europe (both from LBK Germany), there is a good chance that most T1a followed a different route than the Anatolian one taken by predominantly G2a farmers.

Haplogroup R1b-V88 is found in the Levant, most of Africa as well as western Europe. Its presence has been confirmed in Neolithic Spain, although it was never found in the Neolithic Balkans or Central Europe, nor in Mesolithic Europe. All the data strongly supports a Neolithic diffusion from the southern Levant to North Africa, Iberia, then western Europe.

Haplogroup E1b1b was the main lineage of the Natufians (Mesolithic southern Levant). They might have carried a mix of E-V123, E-Z827 and E-M78. Levantine Neolithic farmers would undoubtedly have carried this lineage when they colonised North and East Africa, although it very likely that E1b1b was already present on both sides of the Red Sea before the Neolithic. A small minority of Western Europeans carry E-V12 and E-V22 lineages (under M78), which could be of Neolithic origin. Likewise, E-M123 could have spread through North Africa to Western Europe, as well as again later (Bronze and Iron Ages) from the Near East to Greece and Italy.

All Near Eastern Neolithic farmers probably carried at least some haplogroup G2a. Ancient DNA test showed that Anatolian farmers who colonised the Balkans belonged chiefly to G2a2b (L30), which is the biggest branch in Europe today, as well as G2a2a1b (L90). However, the G2a2a1a-M286 branch hasn't been found in Neolithic samples yet, and today it is present mostly in the Middle East and western Europe, but apparently not in between. This suggests that it could have been a minority lineage of South Levantine farmers.

Haplogroup J1 most probably originated around the Caucasus. Its phylogeography (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades) shows that some early branches (like J1b) might have migrated to Europe before the Neolithic. Others spread with Neolithic farmers from the northern Middle East to Europe (L1189). More interestingly, one branch (PF7264) also expanded during the Neolithic, but is found today in the Arabian peninsula, East Africa and western Europe (Italy, Germany, Britain). This is another potential candidate for Neolithic migration along the southern Mediterranean route to Iberia, although that would be the least certain in the list.


Mitochondrial haplogroups

In terms of mtDNA, the Southwest Asian farmers would have carried typical Near Eastern farmers like haplogroups H5, K1a and T1a, but also other more specific to North Africa and Iberia like J2a2, X1, X2b and X3.

I attempted to determine in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders) other lineages associated with Southwest Asian farmers and came up with mt-haplogroups M1, N1, R0, HV and U3. The Southwest Asian farmers would have absorbed other lineages in Northwest Africa before reaching the Iberian peninsula. These would surely have included U6, and perhaps also H1, H3, H4 and HV0/V.

Atlantische
20-01-17, 13:11
I think it's more logical that E1b1b entered Europe across Iberia (we have aDNA sample from Catalonia, 5000 BCE) and Sicily, and then continued to spread all over the Southern Europe and Balkans. Then, with Roman empire expansion it's spreaded to north/central Europe and Levant, mainly by Balkan Roman legions.

Milan.M
20-01-17, 13:48
I think it's more logical that E1b1b entered Europe across Iberia (we have aDNA sample from Catalonia, 5000 BCE) and Sicily, and then continued to spread all over the Southern Europe and Balkans. Then, with Roman empire expansion it's spreaded to north/central Europe and Levant, mainly by Balkan Roman legions.
I am on the same opinion about E1b1b for right now,is missing from the Balkans until Iron age perhaps? also i think they firstly moved from Africa to Europe through Gibraltar,i doubt they came through Anatolia or directly through the Mediteranean sea,even if they arrived earlier then Iron age in the Balkans,i would assume Iberia rest of Europe,Italy,Balkans etc route,is not so hard to cross over there,much like native Americans this way.
http://navajopeople.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PrenticeHall_first_americans_arrive.jpg

Atlantische
20-01-17, 13:54
I am on the same opinion about E1b1b for right now,is missing from the Balkans until Iron age perhaps? also i think they firstly moved from Africa to Europe through Gibraltar,i doubt they came trough Anatolia or directly trought the Mediteranean sea,is not so hard to cross over there,much like native Americans this way.

Bolded, exactly that. We need more aDNA samples from Balkan Neolithic, (Balkan was been main route for Anatolian farmers to the Central Europe) as we can see for now, main haplogroup of first European Neolithic farmers was been G2a. :smile:

berun
20-01-17, 14:31
The spread of the Neolithic was in a leapfrog advance, the first one in Cyprus, where Anatolian and Levantines people could assemble. The Megalithic traditions in Western Europe start at 4000 BC, 1500 years after the arrival of the first colonizers. By the way the levantine megalithism is quite recent, it would be good to know from where they came.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalithanlagen_auf_dem_Golan

MarkoZ
20-01-17, 16:15
The problem with this is that Megalithism seems to be significantly older in the far south of Europe than in the Levant. The early megaliths in Portugal and Italy predate the European Neolithic arrival.

Maciamo
20-01-17, 18:10
The spread of the Neolithic was in a leapfrog advance, the first one in Cyprus, where Anatolian and Levantines people could assemble. The Megalithic traditions in Western Europe start at 4000 BC, 1500 years after the arrival of the first colonizers. By the way the levantine megalithism is quite recent, it would be good to know from where they came.

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalithanlagen_auf_dem_Golan


Levantine Megalithism is recent? The oldest Neolithic Megalithic site is the one of Atlit Yam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlit_Yam) in coastal Israel (now submerged), dating from 7000 BCE, during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B - the exact period that was tested by Lazaridis et al. (2016) and yielded Y-haplogroups CT, E1b1b, H2 and T.

There is another site from the same period (c. 7200 BCE) submerged 40m tall monolith under water in the Strait of Sicily, between Tunisia and Sicily, and one in southern Portugal also from circa 7000 BCE (Quinta da Queimada Menir). What we see is that all the oldest Megalithic sites are lined up along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, from Israel to Portugal via Tunisia/Sicily (if we exclude the rather different Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia, which featured T-shaped sculpted pillars).

Maciamo
20-01-17, 18:14
The problem with this is that Megalithism seems to be significantly older in the far south of Europe than in the Levant. The early megaliths in Portugal and Italy predate the European Neolithic arrival.

Not significantly older. They are from about the same period (7000 BCE). The dating is stone is very difficult. Archaeological dating relies on carbon 14, which is only found in organic materials, not stone. For all we know the dating could be off by several centuries.

Anyway, not all monuments survived or were found. There could be older ones in the Levant that haven't been uncovered or couldn't be properly dated.

LeBrok
20-01-17, 18:36
The problem with this is that Megalithism seems to be significantly older in the far south of Europe than in the Levant. The early megaliths in Portugal and Italy predate the European Neolithic arrival. Did I understand you right? Are you saying that first megalithic structures were made by european hunter gatherers? I thought it was the farmer's thing. For example first megaliths in Turkey coincide with onset of agriculture in the region about 9 thousand years BC.

MarkoZ
20-01-17, 20:20
Not significantly older. They are from about the same period (7000 BCE). The dating is stone is very difficult. Archaeological dating relies on carbon 14, which is only found in organic materials, not stone. For all we know the dating could be off by several centuries.

Anyway, not all monuments survived or were found. There could be older ones in the Levant that haven't been uncovered or couldn't be properly dated.

Sure, but the fact that the Megalithic people unlearned agriculture & animal husbandry before they entered Europe still needs to be account for in the scenario of a Levantine origin.


Did I understand you right? Are you saying that first megalithic structures were made by european hunter gatherers? I thought it was the farmer's thing. For example first megaliths in Turkey coincide with onset of agriculture in the region about 9 thousand years BC.

I'm positive that the Göbeklitep layers in question also antedate the adoption of agriculture. Granted, this is quite difficult to disentangle since there is continuos human habitation at this site. In Europe it is more obvious, with a gap of almost 1,500 years between the first megaliths and agriculture in Sicily and Portugal. I don't know if the people who erected those where the hunter gatherers we know of, however.

LeBrok
20-01-17, 21:34
I'm positive that the Göbeklitep layers in question also antedate the adoption of agriculture. Granted, this is quite difficult to disentangle since there is continuos human habitation at this site. In Europe it is more obvious, with a gap of almost 1,500 years between the first megaliths and agriculture in Sicily and Portugal. I don't know if the people who erected those where the hunter gatherers we know of, however.
Considering the facts that megalithism appeared "just before" onset of agriculture, and that it is hard to date when stone was worked on by people, and that it takes tremendous labour force which h-gs usually lack, it is way more likely that megalithism was part of farming or herding societies. With farming we have necessary labour force, structured societies, specialized skills and more refined religion, all prerequisites to monumental construction.
It is possible that more numerous h-g groups, or transitional, or mixed groups could pull off some simpler and small scale stone work and building, but I'm leaning towards full farmers as the builders of true megaliths.

berun
20-01-17, 22:38
Not significantly older. They are from about the same period (7000 BCE). The dating is stone is very difficult. Archaeological dating relies on carbon 14, which is only found in organic materials, not stone. For all we know the dating could be off by several centuries.

Anyway, not all monuments survived or were found. There could be older ones in the Levant that haven't been uncovered or couldn't be properly dated.

The Western megalithism and this early Levantine megalithism are different phenomena and they are not connected in time (6500 BC v 4000 BC); the Western used dolmens for burials, but this Levantine site erected big stones to build a temple (as that of the Maltese if you like), and buried the people under the floors of their homes, I don't see the link.

bicicleur
20-01-17, 22:40
I know dating is dificult, but Göbekli Tepe is older than agriculture.

Sedentism existed before agriculture, both in the Natufian Levant as in the Hallan Cemi area (also Demirköy, Körtik Tepe, Qermez Dere, Nemrik ...) and the style of the Göbekli Tepe basreliefs is reminiscent to the style of the artefacts found in the central house of the Hallan Cemi village and other similar places.
Göbekli Tepe seems a HG or herders place, not of farmers.

http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_1998_num_24_1_4667
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/intricacies-of-hallan-cemi/
http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/images/zeder_ca_2011.pdf

Halan Cemi was a HG village with special culling strategies who grew more and more controll over the herds of animals they hunted, both ovicaprids and boars.

Furthermore there is a big gap in time between Göbekli Tepe and other megaliths.
In Europe, in certain areas, all of a sudden, there are lots of megaliths.
Göbekli Tepe is a special case, but I suspect the appearance of the other megaliths coincides with the spread of draught animals, probably oxens.
It is the arrival of a new tribe of farmers with oxens and with a certain specific political order or cult.
Not every tribe with oxens did build these structures.

Fire Haired14
20-01-17, 23:40
Neolithic Swedes didn't have any Sub Saharan African ancestry. If they did then we'd see it in modern Northern Europeans. Well, African mtDNA does exist in Northern Europe at like 0.5%.. ADMIXTURE isn't a reliable judge for whether an ancient genome has Sub Saharan ancestry or not.

Alpenjager
21-01-17, 05:37
I have hypothesised for several years that the wave of Neolithic farmers who came from the southern Levant through North Africa brought a quite different set of haplogroups and autosomal admixture than the Anatolian farmers that colonised the Balkans and Central Europe.

There is ample archaeological evidence that megaliths (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith) originated in the southern Levant (Israel) and Egypt and spread via the south coast of the Mediterranean to Malta, Andalusia (La Almagra Pottery culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Almagra_pottery)) and southern Portugal (Algarve), then spread north along the Atlantic coast of Europe to Brittany, the British Isles, and east to inland France, Corsica, Germany, Belgium and Denmark.

I noticed that samples from the Funnelbeaker culture (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/funnelbeaker_culture.shtml) in Scandinavia, which was a Megalithic culture, had an inordinate amount of Sub-Saharan African autosomal DNA (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33084-African-admixture-in-ancient-Germanic-Scandinavian-people). That made me wonder how it could have got there. My explanation was that it came from Iberian Megalithic people, who in turn got it from Neolithic farmers from North Africa.

As the phylogenetic trees of Y-haplogroups are getting deeper year after year, it is becoming easier to retrace ancient migrations.

Y-DNA haplogroups

In my opinion, these farmers belonged to Y-haplogroups T1a, R1b-V88, E1b1b, and a few specific G2a and J1 subclades.

Haplogroup T1a was found in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jordan. Its expansion age dates from the Early Neolithic and its modern distribution in the Middle East suggests a stronger association with the Fertile Crescent and Southwest Asia than with Anatolia. After analysing the T1a phylogeography (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades), it struck me that the subclades dating from the Neolithic that were found in Europe were also typically found in the Arabian peninsula and sometimes also East and North Africa. This is the case of T1a1a1a1-CTS2214 (found in Southwest Asia, East Africa and western Europe), T1a1a1b1-Y12643 (found in the Arabian peninsula and western Europe), and T1a1a1b2-Y22559 (found in North Africa and Iberia). Considering that only two T1a samples were so far found in Neolithic Europe (both from LBK Germany), there is a good chance that most T1a followed a different route than the Anatolian one taken by predominantly G2a farmers.

Haplogroup R1b-V88 is found in the Levant, most of Africa as well as western Europe. Its presence has been confirmed in Neolithic Spain, although it was never found in the Neolithic Balkans or Central Europe, nor in Mesolithic Europe. All the data strongly supports a Neolithic diffusion from the southern Levant to North Africa, Iberia, then western Europe.

Haplogroup E1b1b was the main lineage of the Natufians (Mesolithic southern Levant). They might have carried a mix of E-V123, E-Z827 and E-M78. Levantine Neolithic farmers would undoubtedly have carried this lineage when they colonised North and East Africa, although it very likely that E1b1b was already present on both sides of the Red Sea before the Neolithic. A small minority of Western Europeans carry E-V12 and E-V22 lineages (under M78), which could be of Neolithic origin. Likewise, E-M123 could have spread through North Africa to Western Europe, as well as again later (Bronze and Iron Ages) from the Near East to Greece and Italy.

All Near Eastern Neolithic farmers probably carried at least some haplogroup G2a. Ancient DNA test showed that Anatolian farmers who colonised the Balkans belonged chiefly to G2a2b (L30), which is the biggest branch in Europe today, as well as G2a2a1b (L90). However, the G2a2a1a-M286 branch hasn't been found in Neolithic samples yet, and today it is present mostly in the Middle East and western Europe, but apparently not in between. This suggests that it could have been a minority lineage of South Levantine farmers.

Haplogroup J1 most probably originated around the Caucasus. Its phylogeography (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml#subclades) shows that some early branches (like J1b) might have migrated to Europe before the Neolithic. Others spread with Neolithic farmers from the northern Middle East to Europe (L1189). More interestingly, one branch (PF7264) also expanded during the Neolithic, but is found today in the Arabian peninsula, East Africa and western Europe (Italy, Germany, Britain). This is another potential candidate for Neolithic migration along the southern Mediterranean route to Iberia, although that would be the least certain in the list.


Mitochondrial haplogroups

In terms of mtDNA, the Southwest Asian farmers would have carried typical Near Eastern farmers like haplogroups H5, K1a and T1a, but also other more specific to North Africa and Iberia like J2a2, X1, X2b and X3.

I attempted to determine in this thread (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/29400-Correlating-the-mtDNA-haplogroups-of-the-original-Y-haplogroup-J1-and-T1-herders) other lineages associated with Southwest Asian farmers and came up with mt-haplogroups M1, N1, R0, HV and U3. The Southwest Asian farmers would have absorbed other lineages in Northwest Africa before reaching the Iberian peninsula. These would surely have included U6, and perhaps also H1, H3, H4 and HV0/V.

Maciamo, this is not correct. Haplogroup T1a-M70 was NOT found in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jordan but instead was found T1-PF5610 (xT1a1-Z526, T1a1a-CTS9163, T1a1a-CTS2607, T1a2-S11611, T1a2-Y6031, T1a2a1-P322, T1a3a-Y9189), the most probably subclade is T1b which is negative for M70. T1b is not linked to the T1a1 found in the Early Neolithic from the North European Plain.

holderlin
21-01-17, 05:43
Was waiting for Gobekli Tepe

Don't know about SSA in TRB, but I agree with everything else, pretty much, although as some other say I don't think there's yet evidence of super-early megaliths in the Levant per se. Gobekli Tepe is close enough for me though. I think the circum-Mediterranean expansion of farmers isn't talked about enough. The Sahara was a massive savanna until like 5000 years ago, with lakes and stuff too. This must have been prime real estate for herds.

I lean more towards R1b-V88 coming from Iberia than anywhere else.

LeBrok
21-01-17, 06:54
I know dating is dificult, but Göbekli Tepe is older than agriculture.

Sedentism existed before agriculture, both in the Natufian Levant as in the Hallan Cemi area (also Demirköy, Körtik Tepe, Qermez Dere, Nemrik ...) and the style of the Göbekli Tepe basreliefs is reminiscent to the style of the artefacts found in the central house of the Hallan Cemi village and other similar places.
Göbekli Tepe seems a HG or herders place, not of farmers.


But, Peters and Schmidt say, Gobekli Tepe's builders were on the verge of a major change in how they lived, thanks to an environment that held the raw materials for farming. "They had wild sheep, wild grains that could be domesticated—and the people with the potential to do it," Schmidt says. In fact, research at other sites in the region has shown that within 1,000 years of Gobekli Tepe's construction, settlers had corralled sheep, cattle and pigs. And, at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/#Qzdc2dDMmqSKfmuf.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
Gobekli Tepe sits on Fertile Crescent, in center of birth of agriculture. First domesticated wheat was excavated close by and dated at 500 years after Gobekli Tepe. Keep in mind that for grain to become genetically distinct from wild one, or sheep or pig, and called domesticated takes centuries if not a thousand of years of inbreeding them and selecting the bigger and tastier ones. It is a long proces. And usually these dates go back with more digging and discovering, and this should happen in the future. Taking under consideration that to becoming a full farmer is a long process, of couple of thousands of years I suppose, then Gobekli Tepe was built by farmers. Perhaps not so refined like these who moved into Europe, but nethertheless very early farmers and herders.

Let's also keep in mind that we don't have any concrete evidence of any h-gs building stone temples or large scale structures of stone. Anything from Australian Aborigines, prairie Indians or Amazon jungle tribes? I don't think so. On other hand we have countless records of farmers building them. Why should it be any different in Gobekli Tepe? It is in fertile crescent after all, the cradle of farming, with domesticated grains found in close vicinity and same time period.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 10:07
Did I understand you right? Are you saying that first megalithic structures were made by european hunter gatherers? I thought it was the farmer's thing. For example first megaliths in Turkey coincide with onset of agriculture in the region about 9 thousand years BC.

I don't think it really matters as long as they are built by a settled community. Early farming was not a self-sufficient mode of subsistence. Almost all Early Neolithic farmers, even during the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe 6000 years after the beginning of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, complemented their diet by hunting and gathering. In a sense, we still do. There are still hunters, and many people go to the woods to collect mushrooms. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, when food couldn't be stored easily, hunting and gathering would have been about as important as farming.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 10:28
I know dating is dificult, but Göbekli Tepe is older than agriculture.

Sedentism existed before agriculture, both in the Natufian Levant as in the Hallan Cemi area (also Demirköy, Körtik Tepe, Qermez Dere, Nemrik ...) and the style of the Göbekli Tepe basreliefs is reminiscent to the style of the artefacts found in the central house of the Hallan Cemi village and other similar places.
Göbekli Tepe seems a HG or herders place, not of farmers.

http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_1998_num_24_1_4667
https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/intricacies-of-hallan-cemi/
http://anthropology.si.edu/archaeobio/images/zeder_ca_2011.pdf

Halan Cemi was a HG village with special culling strategies who grew more and more controll over the herds of animals they hunted, both ovicaprids and boars.

Furthermore there is a big gap in time between Göbekli Tepe and other megaliths.
In Europe, in certain areas, all of a sudden, there are lots of megaliths.
Göbekli Tepe is a special case, but I suspect the appearance of the other megaliths coincides with the spread of draught animals, probably oxens.
It is the arrival of a new tribe of farmers with oxens and with a certain specific political order or cult.
Not every tribe with oxens did build these structures.

That's a very good point. Megalithic structure might require draught animals like oxen. If so, then it makes sense that the oldest megaliths are found in Göbekli Tepe, close to the modern Syria-Turkey border, as this is exactly the region where cattle were first domesticated 10,500 years ago, and that time frame fits right in the middle of the occupation of Göbekli Tepe (11,500 to 9,000 years ago). Since all archaeological dating is approximative, and traces of cattle domestication only start showing up when cattle were completely domesticated, it is fair to assume that the whole domestication process took some time, with selective breeding over generations to prune out the less docile and more aggressive cattle. So the first attempt at cattle domestication could coincide more or less with the establishment of Göbekli Tepe.

If megalithism originated with cattle herders from Göbekli Tepe, then according to the theory I proposed several years ago these first cattle herders would have belonged to Y-haplogroup R1b1. One branch migrated to the Caucausus and northwest Iran, before crossing over to the Pontic Steppe, while the other (R1b-V88) migrated to the Levant during the PPNB period, then to North Africa and eventually Iberia. Here is what I wrote in my R1b history (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Africa):

"The migration of R1b people can be followed archeologically through the presence of domesticated cattle, which appear in central Syria around 8,000-7,500 BCE (late Mureybet period), then in the Southern Levant and Egypt around 7,000-6,500 BCE (e.g. at Nabta Playa and Bir Kiseiba). Cattle herders subsequently spread across most of northern and eastern Africa. The Sahara desert would have been more humid during the Neolithic Subpluvial period (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial) (c. 7250-3250 BCE), and would have been a vast savannah full of grass, an ideal environment for cattle herding.
...
After reaching the Maghreb, R1b-V88 cattle herders could have crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to Iberia, probably accompanied by G2 farmers, J1 and T1a goat herders. These North African Neolithic farmers/herders could have been the ones who established the Almagra Pottery culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Almagra_pottery) in Andalusia in the 6th millennium BCE."

What is amazing is that the megalithic path follows almost exactly the route and timing taken by R1b-V88.

Better still, Jean Manco linked the diffusion of R1b-L51 from the Steppe to western Europe with the mysterious Kurgan stelae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae), another kind of monoliths. So it increasingly looks like prehistoric R1b people had a thing for monoliths. If R1b-V88 really initiated the culture of megaliths in Western Europe, it is fitting and somehow amazing too that Steppe R1b people eventually migrated across all Europe to settle exactly in those Megalithic societies, as if their own culture of monolithic stelae attracted them toward the more awe-inspiring Megaliths of the Atlantic fringe. I do not think it is just a coincidence. After all, humans tend to be attracted by things they know and value. The Proto-Indo-Europeans had a military advantage thanks to bronze weapons and horses, but Megalithic culture may have exerted a certain prestige that Steppe chieftains sought to acquire for themselves. That would explain why the replacement of paternal lineages was more thorough in regions with particularly lots of megalithic monuments, like Ireland, Britain, southern Scandinavia, the Low Countries, the west coast of France or northern Spain.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/02/fe/ff/02feff3fd40eb32cc932fe4a12c2246c.jpg


This other map shows where Megaliths were found in history. That also includes the Maykop culture (lots of dolmens (http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=33163)) and the coastal Maghreb. It would explain everything if R1b-V88 and R1b-M269 early cattle herders were the source of all these megalithic cultures. It all fits together. Even Kurgan tombs are highly reminiscent of Atlantic Megalithic passage tombs like those of Newgrange and Knowth (http://www.knowth.com/) in Ireland. The main difference was that Steppe culture were individualistic and elitist, while Megalithic people (who were autosomally Near Eastern and WHG, instead of EHG and Gedrosia) were collectivist. But that's a distinction found in most farming vs herding communities.

http://www.newgrange.com/images/megalithic-map.jpg

MarkoZ
21-01-17, 10:42
Considering the facts that megalithism appeared "just before" onset of agriculture, and that it is hard to date when stone was worked on by people, and that it takes tremendous labour force which h-gs usually lack, it is way more likely that megalithism was part of farming or herding societies. With farming we have necessary labour force, structured societies, specialized skills and more refined religion, all prerequisites to monumental construction.
It is possible that more numerous h-g groups, or transitional, or mixed groups could pull off some simpler and small scale stone work and building, but I'm leaning towards full farmers as the builders of true megaliths.

If early megaliths were confined to Anatolia and the Levante I'd be inclined to agree. In Europe however there is a significant gap. The Sicilian megalith became submerged in uncal. 9350 ± 200 year B.P., Impressed Ware and agriculture arrive in 6000 B.C.E. . The Portuguese megalith is dated to uncal. 9097 ± 445 year B.P., while the first traces of agriculture appear in 5600 - 5000 B.C.E. .

Maciamo
21-01-17, 11:18
Maciamo, this is not correct. Haplogroup T1a-M70 was NOT found in Pre-Pottery Neolithic Jordan but instead was found T1-PF5610 (xT1a1-Z526, T1a1a-CTS9163, T1a1a-CTS2607, T1a2-S11611, T1a2-Y6031, T1a2a1-P322, T1a3a-Y9189), the most probably subclade is T1b which is negative for M70. T1b is not linked to the T1a1 found in the Early Neolithic from the North European Plain.

The mutations defining T1a were not tested. AFAIK there is no SNP defining T1b. This clade was determined using STR variations only and is extremely rare. The PPNB sample in Jordan could have been T1a or T1b, or just T1*. In my opinion it doesn't matter much because statistically the chances of it being T1* or T1a are overwhelming. In any case, all T1 would have expanded from the same region. Most very ancient samples will turn out to be men who did not leave any descendants to this day and therefore belong to extinct clades, or just a clade with an asterisk (like T1*). The older the sample and the higher the statistical chance that an individual did not pass on his Y-DNA to posterity. That's why if you were to test 100 PPNB samples in Jordan (or anywhere else) I would bet that over half of them (perhaps more like 90% of them) would belong to extinct clades (i.e. a Y-DNA lineage not ancestral to anyone alive today). That's exactly what we see with Mesolithic Europeans or the Natufians (lots of extinct C1a2, F*, I*, CT, E1b1*). This is because of natural selection (men born with beneficial mutations in the coding region of the Y chromosome had increased fertility (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/Major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_defined_by_gene_altering-polymorphisms.shtml)) and because in most human societies in history people with more wealth and power tended to have more children who reached adulthood.

All this to say that whether this sample was T1*, T1a*, T1a1* or whatever, there is a very high likelihood that that particular individual did not pass on his Y-DNA to modern T1a people. But someone else in his tribe, or the neighbouring tribe, would have.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 11:43
If early megaliths were confined to Anatolia and the Levante I'd be inclined to agree. In Europe however there is a significant gap. The Sicilian megalith became submerged in uncal. 9350 ± 200 year B.P., Impressed Ware and agriculture arrive in 6000 B.C.E. . The Portuguese megalith is dated to uncal. 9097 ± 445 year B.P., while the first traces of agriculture appear in 5600 - 5000 B.C.E. .

Don't get to obsess with dates. As I explained above, they are approximate, and even very approximate for submerged stones with no organic material left nearby.

Additionally, when archaeologists notice migrations and advances of Neolithic cultures it is usually because a sizeable number of people moved and settled in a new region. But the truth is that humans have always had some avant-gardiste explorers. Imagine if no historical document existed to tell us that Christopher Columbus was the first European (well, Vikings excluded) to reach the American continent. If we only had archaeology to tell us when Europeans first colonised the Americas, what date would they come up with? Nobody would know where they first landed, and obviously that could have been anywhere in North, Central or South America. Our data would evolve with archaeological finds, which depend on luck and local budgets in different regions. There would be more archaeologist and more money available in the USA and more finds would emerge there first. So archaeologist might conclude at first that Europeans didn't settle in the Americas until the 17th century. Then more data would emerge from Central America that showed a slightly earlier colonisation. However, as they have to rely on carbon dating, they wouldn't be able to tell for sure within a few decades or even a century which settlement was the oldest. Furthermore, some early colonists would not have left much archaeological trace because they built wooden structure that have disappeared. Other sites might be under water if the sea level have increased even a bit. And that's for an event that happened only 500 years ago. Try 10,000 years and imagine how much more data is missing.

Back to the Early Neolithic, I can easily imagine a group of pre-pottery cattle herder following the Mediterranean coast from the Levant and ending up in Tunisia or Morocco within a few generations. The bulk of the Neolithic population would have remained in the Fertile Crescent. But there have always been explorers, or even people banished from their land for one reason or another. Chances are that these early explorers didn't leave any trace in the archaeological record, especially if they went along a coast that is now submerged. And the Earth was in full global warming at the time. So for all we know coastal North Africa could have been settled by Neolithic farmers before Europe. It's not just the submerged coastline that is problematic, but even more so the advance of the Sahara desert, which has now gobbled up all the Neolithic savanna until the sea in most of Egypt and Libya. It's nearly impossible to find traces of a Neolithic village buried under metres of sand when you don't know where to look for it. But there could be thousands of them.

What is certain is that R1b-V88 was found in Early Neolithic Spain, just as I had predicted years before the DNA test was done. That prediction was made based on the spread of cattle domestication from the Göbekli Tepe region as described above. I didn't think of the link with megaliths at the time.

bicicleur
21-01-17, 11:54
Göbekli Tepe is dated to PPNA or earlier
Natufian PPNA didn't exist east of the Euphrates, Göbekli Tepe is 80 km east of the Euphrates as the crow flies

PPNA people grew pulses and cereals, and supplemented their diet by hunting gazelles, they didn't have domesticates
Goats/sheep were gradually domesticated in the eastern Taurus and Zagros - Hallan Cemi - Zawi Chemi - Ganj Dareh
oldest PPNB site is 10.7 ka Tell Aswad, another early PPNB site is Ain Ghazal
in PPNB gazelle is replaced by goat, it is hunter/herding people from Hallan Cemi who merged with Natufians in villages
mudbrick huts in PPNB are also different from brushwood huts in PPNA
in PPNB Ain Ghazal the DNA is much more differentiated than in the older Natufian site on Mt Carmel



Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I0685 / Nat 4]
M
11840-9760 BCE
CT > genetiker CT(xJ1, J2a, J2b, T1, P)
CTS9555, Y1580


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
Natufian 83 % Natufi + 14 % EEF + 1 % Papua + 1 % CHG + 1 % (WHG/ Karitiana)
I1685 Levant Natufian E1b1b-CTS10365 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1685/)


Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I1069 / Nat 5]
M
11840-9760 BCE
E1b1 (xE1b1a1, E1b1b1b1)
M5403+ (E), P179+ (E1b1), (Z1116-, CTS8649-)


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1069 Levant Natufian E1b1b1-PF1871(xE1b1b1b1) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1069/)


Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I1690 / Nat 6]
M
11840-9760 BCE
CT > genetiker CT(xJ, L, R1a, V88, M269)
Y1462, M5723, L977


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1690 Levant Natufian E1b1b-CTS4345 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1690/)


Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I1072 / Nat 9]
M
11840-9760 BCE
E1b1b1b2 Z830 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
CTS8182+, CTS11781+ (E1b1b1b2), (CTS1652-, CTS11051-, CTS11574-)
N1b ?
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)



Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I0861 / Nat 10]
M
11840-9760 BCE
E1b1b1b2 Z830 (xE1b1b1b2a, E1b1b1b2b)
L336+ (E1b1b), M5108+, CTS3637+, CTS7154+, PF1755+, L796+ (E1b1b1), CTS11781+ (E1b1b1b2), (L857-, Z865-)


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)



Natufian
Israel
Raqefet Cave, Mount Carmel [I0687 / Nat 13]
F
11520-11110 calBCE (11405±120 BP)






Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)

























PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1414 / AG 84/1]
M
8300-7900 BCE
E (xE2, E1a, E1b1a1a1c2c3b1, E1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1b2b) > genetiker E-M215 (1) > M35 > Z827 > Z830 (1)
P167+ (DE), CTS2893+ (E), (Z15455-, Z912-, CTS3507-, CTS11248- , Z16129-, Z16130-, CTS10196-, M293-, CTS11446- CTS11447-)


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
Levant Neol 41 % Natufi + 52 % EEF + 1 % WHG + 2 % CHG + 1 % Eskimo + 1 % Papua + 1 % (S.Asia/ Karitiana) 3 x E1b1b + 2 x H2 + T
I1414 Levant PPNB E1b1b1b2-CTS11781 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1414/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1416 / AG 84/3]
M
8300-7900 BCE
CT
CTS7933, M5786


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1416 Levant PPNB CT(xH, I, J, K) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1416/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1700 / AG 88_1]
M
8300-7900 BCE
CT > genetiker H2-P96 (2)
M5603, M5624, CTS3460, M5822
None given
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1700 Levant PPNC H2-P96 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1700/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1727 / AG 83_30]
M
8300-7900 BCE
CT (xE, G, J, LT, R, Q1a, Q1b)
M5723+, CTS7922+, M5769+, M5822+, M5823+
None given
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1727 Levant PPNB F(xG, J, LT, K2) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1727/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1415 / AG 84/2]
M
8197-7653 calBCE
E1b1b1
CTS2216+


Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1415 Levant PPNB E1b1b1b2a1-Y4974 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1415/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1710 / AG 83_6]
M
7733-7526 calBCE (8580±60 BP)
E1b1b1 (xE1b1b1b1a1, E1b1b1a1b1, E1b1b1a1b2, E1b1b1b2a1c)
M5041+ (CTS5819-, L618-, CTS5479-, V23-)
T1a2
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1710 Levant PPNB E1b1b1a1-CTS675 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1710/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1707 / AG 83_5]
M
7722-7541 calBCE (8590±50 BP)
T (xT1a1, T1a2a)
PF7466+, CTS7263+, CTS10416+ (FGC3945.2- P322-)
R0a
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)
I1707 Levant PPNB T1-PF5610(xT1a1, T1a2) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1707/)


PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1704 / AG 89_1]
F
7446-7058 calBCE (8190±60 BP)




T1a
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)



PPNB
Israel
Motza [I0867 / Motz 1]
M
7300-6750 BCE
H2
M2713+, M2896+, M2936+, M2942+, M2992+, M3070+ (H), P96+ (H2). It was not derived for any downstream mutations
K1a4b
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)



PPNB
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1679 / AG 037C]
F
6900-6800 BCE




None given
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)



PPNC
Jordan
Ain Ghazal [I1699 / AG 84_5]
F
6800-6700 BCE




R0a2
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H3]


6800-6000 BC




R0
Fernández 2008 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2008); corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H4]


6800-6000 BC




K
Fernández 2008 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2008); corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H7]


6800-6000 BC




K
Fernández 2008 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2008); corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H8]


6800-6000 BC




L3
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H25]


6800-6000 BC




K
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H28]


6800-6000 BC




U*
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H49]


6800-6000 BC




H
Fernández 2008; corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H53]


6800-6000 BC [I1101/M11-352a]




HV
Fernández 2008; corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H68]


6800-6000 BC




H
Fernández 2008; corrected byFernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




PPNB
Syria
Tell Halula [H70]


6800-6000 BC




N*
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




Pre-pottery Neolithic B
Syria
Tell Ramad [R64-4II]


6000-5750 BC




R0
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




Pre-pottery Neolithic B
Syria
Tell Ramad [T65-14]


6000-5750 BC




K
Fernández 2005;Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




Pre-pottery Neolithic B
Syria
Tell Ramad [R65-C8-SEB]


6000-5750 BC




K
Fernández 2005;Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




Pre-pottery Neolithic B
Syria
Tell Ramad [R65-1S]


6000-5750 BC




K
Fernández 2005;Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)




Pre-pottery Neolithic B
Syria
Tell Ramad [R69(2)]


6000-5750 BC




R0
Fernández 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Fernandez2014)






these are the Zagros goat herders - Ganj Dareh - they are R2 and reached the Indus Valley with goats





Iran
Ganj Dareh [I1945 / GD 16]
M
8000-7700 BCE
P1 (xQ, R1b1a2, R1a1a1b1a1b, R1a1a1b1a3a, R1a1a1b2a2a) > genetiker R2-M479 (2) > Y3399 (3) xY12100 (2- ;10,9ka ;10,9 ka)
P282+ (F1237.1-, FGC4603-, CTS12478-, CTS11962-, L448-, Z2123-)
J1c10
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)

I1945 Iran Neolithic R2a-Y3399 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1945/)






Iran
Ganj Dareh [I1949 / GD 37]
M
8000-7700 BCE
CT > genetiker R2-M479 5 op 6
M5593, PF228, M5624, PF342, Z17710, CTS2842, CTS5532, M5730, M5751, M5765, CTS11358.
None given
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)

I1949 Iran Neolithic pre-R2-M479 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1949/)






9.8 ka first domesticated cereals arrived in this area

this is the population after 9.8 ka - G2b and G2a1



Kermanshah Neolithic
Iran
Wezmeh Cave (WC1)
M
7445-7082 BC
G2b
related to 3 others >11 ka
J1d6
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.DC1/Broushaki.SM.pdf

WC1 Early Neolithic 7455–7082 G2b2a-Z8022 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-wc1/)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-P287/




Iran
Seh Gabi [I1671 / SG2]
M
5837-5659 calBCE (6850±50 BP)
G2a1 (xG2a1a)
FGC666+, FGC587+, FGC7537+, FGC592+, FGC7533+, FGC593+, FGC594, FGC7536+, FGC600+, FGC602+, FGC606+, FGC607+, FGC610+, FGC617+, FGC618+, FGC7543+, FGC7547+, FGC631+, FGC7546+, FGC635+, FGC637+, FGC639+, FGC641+ ( FGC703-, FGC741-, FGC762-).
K1a12a
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)


I1671 Iran Neolithic G2a1a-FGC602(xG2a1a1) calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i1671/)

MarkoZ
21-01-17, 13:07
Don't get to obsess with dates. As I explained above, they are approximate, and even very approximate for submerged stones with no organic material left nearby.

Additionally, when archaeologists notice migrations and advances of Neolithic cultures it is usually because a sizeable number of people moved and settled in a new region. But the truth is that humans have always had some avant-gardiste explorers. Imagine if no historical document existed to tell us that Christopher Columbus was the first European (well, Vikings excluded) to reach the American continent. If we only had archaeology to tell us when Europeans first colonised the Americas, what date would they come up with? Nobody would know where they first landed, and obviously that could have been anywhere in North, Central or South America. Our data would evolve with archaeological finds, which depend on luck and local budgets in different regions. There would be more archaeologist and more money available in the USA and more finds would emerge there first. So archaeologist might conclude at first that Europeans didn't settle in the Americas until the 17th century. Then more data would emerge from Central America that showed a slightly earlier colonisation. However, as they have to rely on carbon dating, they wouldn't be able to tell for sure within a few decades or even a century which settlement was the oldest. Furthermore, some early colonists would not have left much archaeological trace because they built wooden structure that have disappeared. Other sites might be under water if the sea level have increased even a bit. And that's for an event that happened only 500 years ago. Try 10,000 years and imagine how much more data is missing.

Back to the Early Neolithic, I can easily imagine a group of pre-pottery cattle herder following the Mediterranean coast from the Levant and ending up in Tunisia or Morocco within a few generations. The bulk of the Neolithic population would have remained in the Fertile Crescent. But there have always been explorers, or even people banished from their land for one reason or another. Chances are that these early explorers didn't leave any trace in the archaeological record, especially if they went along a coast that is now submerged. And the Earth was in full global warming at the time. So for all we know coastal North Africa could have been settled by Neolithic farmers before Europe. It's not just the submerged coastline that is problematic, but even more so the advance of the Sahara desert, which has now gobbled up all the Neolithic savanna until the sea in most of Egypt and Libya. It's nearly impossible to find traces of a Neolithic village buried under metres of sand when you don't know where to look for it. But there could be thousands of them.

What is certain is that R1b-V88 was found in Early Neolithic Spain, just as I had predicted years before the DNA test was done. That prediction was made based on the spread of cattle domestication from the Göbekli Tepe region as described above. I didn't think of the link with megaliths at the time.

I do not think that noticing a 1,500 year gap means that I'm obsessed with dates. To be honest, I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, but I don't think these are particularly helpful. Sacrificing these details for a beautiful narrative just seems like a bad idea considering the overall paucity of evidence.

Moreover, I don't think the Levant is a good place for the origin of Megalithism. The intrusive Natufian antagonizes the Upper Paleolithic Euro-Anatolian cultural complex associated with Megalithism in many ways (think, for example, the abundant Venus figurines ). It's also telling that Megalithism really takes off in Western Europe, where the latter could develop unperturbed by foreign influences.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 17:10
I do not think that noticing a 1,500 year gap means that I'm obsessed with dates. To be honest, I can imagine all kinds of scenarios, but I don't think these are particularly helpful. Sacrificing these details for a beautiful narrative just seems like a bad idea considering the overall paucity of evidence.

What 1,500 years gap? There are megaliths in Israel, the Straight of Sicily and southern Portugal around 7,000 BCE, then other megaliths in southern Portugal around 6,000 BCE. During the 6th millennium BCE we see megalithic sites popping up in the Levant (Rujm el-Hiri in Israel), Egypt, Malta (Skorba temples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skorba)), Portugal, Andalusia (La Almagra), Galicia, Corsica, as well as southern, central and western France (including Poitou and Brittany). What we see is a coherent complex of megalithic cultures spanning from Israel to Portugal and to Brittany, following maritime routes along the southern and western coasts of the Mediterranean and going up to the Atlantic coast of Europe. For example, the oldest megaliths in Brittany are dated to 4,800 BCE, but other were built again around 4,000 BCE, 3,300 BCE, 2,500 BCE and 2,000 BCE. Likewise in Malta there are megaliths from 4,800 BCE, 3,600 BCE and 3,200 BCE. In southern Spain, they are dated from 5,000 BCE, 4,000 BCE, 3,500 BCE and 3,000 BCE. Obviously these people weren't building megalithic monuments every century, as they tend to last, but you can see the same pattern back and forth between Israel and Portugal and between Spain and Brittany. There seems to have been a lot of movements in both directions. It was not a simple east-west migration but more likely a trade route that was used for several millennia.


Moreover, I don't think the Levant is a good place for the origin of Megalithism. The intrusive Natufian antagonizes the Upper Paleolithic Euro-Anatolian cultural complex associated with Megalithism in many ways (think, for example, the abundant Venus figurines ). It's also telling that Megalithism really takes off in Western Europe, where the latter could develop unperturbed by foreign influences.

I didn't suggest that Megalithism originated with the Natufians (CT, E1b1b) but with the R1b-V88 cattle herders who came from southeastern Turkey and northern Syria. I think at first it might have been only R1b-V88 herders who colonised North Africa. If there was another haplogroup it would have been T1a, but I associate it more with goat herders. Nowadays Sub-Saharan Africans tend to have only R1b-V88 (mostly Sahel, like the Hausa, Fulani, Kirdi and Berbers) or T1a (Horn of Africa), but not both together, which suggests separate migrations. The Horn of Africa also has a lot of E1b1b, but there is too little data now to estimate how much of it is Palaeolithic (old clades like M281, V6 and V92) vs Neolithic. Interestingly G2a is not found in Sub-Saharan Africa, but only in North Africa, meaning that there were at least three distinct colonising events from the Near East during the Neolithic.

MarkoZ
21-01-17, 18:32
What 1,500 years gap? There are megaliths in Israel, the Straight of Sicily and southern Portugal around 7,000 BCE, then other megaliths in southern Portugal around 6,000 BCE. During the 6th millennium BCE we see megalithic sites popping up in the Levant (Rujm el-Hiri in Israel), Egypt, Malta (Skorba temples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skorba)), Portugal, Andalusia (La Almagra), Galicia, Corsica, as well as southern, central and western France (including Poitou and Brittany). What we see is a coherent complex of megalithic cultures spanning from Israel to Portugal and to Brittany, following maritime routes along the southern and western coasts of the Mediterranean and going up to the Atlantic coast of Europe. For example, the oldest megaliths in Brittany are dated to 4,800 BCE, but other were built again around 4,000 BCE, 3,300 BCE, 2,500 BCE and 2,000 BCE. Likewise in Malta there are megaliths from 4,800 BCE, 3,600 BCE and 3,200 BCE. In southern Spain, they are dated from 5,000 BCE, 4,000 BCE, 3,500 BCE and 3,000 BCE. Obviously these people weren't building megalithic monuments every century, as they tend to last, but you can see the same pattern back and forth between Israel and Portugal and between Spain and Brittany. There seems to have been a lot of movements in both directions. It was not a simple east-west migration but more likely a trade route that was used for several millennia.

I didn't suggest that Megalithism originated with the Natufians (CT, E1b1b) but with the R1b-V88 cattle herders who came from southeastern Turkey and northern Syria. I think at first it might have been only R1b-V88 herders who colonised North Africa. If there was another haplogroup it would have been T1a, but I associate it more with goat herders. Nowadays Sub-Saharan Africans tend to have only R1b-V88 (mostly Sahel, like the Hausa, Fulani, Kirdi and Berbers) or T1a (Horn of Africa), but not both together, which suggests separate migrations. The Horn of Africa also has a lot of E1b1b, but there is too little data now to estimate how much of it is Palaeolithic (old clades like M281, V6 and V92) vs Neolithic. Interestingly G2a is not found in Sub-Saharan Africa, but only in North Africa, meaning that there were at least three distinct colonising events from the Near East during the Neolithic.

As I pointed out, there is a 1,500 year gap between the appearence of Megalithism and the arrival of the agricultural Neolithic in Western Europe. If there was a maritime excursion from the Levant to Europe in 7,000 B.C., I'm almost certain we'd see an early Neolithic revolution at these sites, considering that Europe was virgin territory for farmers. Instead, the spread of agriculture in Europe has a quite linear east-to-west trajectory starting in the Aegean, with an expected late arrival in far Western Europe.

The particular importance of the Levant in the development of Megalithism eludes me. The Rujm el-Hiri site in Israel, for example, is dated to the Bronze Age and post-dates the explosion of megalithic sites in Europe. Apart from Atlit Yam, Megalithism just looks like a more properly European phenomenon (well Europe plus Anatolia, but the distinction was likely to have been moot in the Mesolithic). With Atlit Yam submerged already in the pre-pottery Neolithic, there must have been an almost complete break from this tradition in the Levant for several millennia.

Milan.M
21-01-17, 18:55
As I pointed out, there is a 1,500 year gap between the appearence of Megalithism and the arrival of the agricultural Neolithic in Western Europe. If there was a maritime excursion from the Levant to Europe in 7,000 B.C., I'm almost certain we'd see an early Neolithic revolution at these sites, considering that Europe was virgin territory for farmers. Instead, the spread of agriculture in Europe has a quite linear east-to-west trajectory starting in the Aegean, with an expected late arrival in far Western Europe.
Right and as genetics so far are telling us this are two separate routes the farming coming from Anatolia through the Balkans so far majority tested G2a,whereas E1b1b through north Africa-Iberia,the same route was probably for R1b-V88 too,we found them in Africa.They are missing from the Neolithic Balkans.
If they came the same route as the farmers did,we would have find their trace so far.

Alpenjager
21-01-17, 19:08
The mutations defining T1a were not tested. AFAIK there is no SNP defining T1b. This clade was determined using STR variations only and is extremely rare. The PPNB sample in Jordan could have been T1a or T1b, or just T1*. In my opinion it doesn't matter much because statistically the chances of it being T1* or T1a are overwhelming. In any case, all T1 would have expanded from the same region. Most very ancient samples will turn out to be men who did not leave any descendants to this day and therefore belong to extinct clades, or just a clade with an asterisk (like T1*). The older the sample and the higher the statistical chance that an individual did not pass on his Y-DNA to posterity. That's why if you were to test 100 PPNB samples in Jordan (or anywhere else) I would bet that over half of them (perhaps more like 90% of them) would belong to extinct clades (i.e. a Y-DNA lineage not ancestral to anyone alive today). That's exactly what we see with Mesolithic Europeans or the Natufians (lots of extinct C1a2, F*, I*, CT, E1b1*). This is because of natural selection (men born with beneficial mutations in the coding region of the Y chromosome had increased fertility (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/Major_Y-DNA_haplogroups_defined_by_gene_altering-polymorphisms.shtml)) and because in most human societies in history people with more wealth and power tended to have more children who reached adulthood.

All this to say that whether this sample was T1*, T1a*, T1a1* or whatever, there is a very high likelihood that that particular individual did not pass on his Y-DNA to modern T1a people. But someone else in his tribe, or the neighbouring tribe, would have.

Maciamo, This is not just T1* but also negative for: T1a1-Z526, T1a1a-CTS9163, T1a1a-CTS2607, T1a2-S11611, T1a2-Y6031, T1a2a1-P322, T1a3a-Y9189. This mean that the sample can't belong to T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3a. So with our actual knowledge, only fit T1a3b, T1b and T1*.
T1a3b: Rarest than T1b, found only in Iraq and North European Plain.
T1b (T1*(xM70)): Found in 1-Macedonia, 2.1-Berbers from Sejnane 2.2-Syria, Druzes from Lebanon, Upper Egypt and Iberian Peninsula (admixed population from Colombia). Actually one sample tested for BigY and waiting for YFull results.
T1*: There is only found T1b, we have no knowledge of the existance of any other branch.

Statistically the chances of it being T1b or T1* are higher.

All T1 would have expanded from the same region but this region is not where a PPNB sample have been found more than 15000 years after of T1-L206 first appeared. Natufians have 0% of T1, so the chances of coming from the north are higher.

LeBrok
21-01-17, 19:30
I don't think it really matters as long as they are built by a settled community. Early farming was not a self-sufficient mode of subsistence. Almost all Early Neolithic farmers, even during the Linear Pottery culture in Central Europe 6000 years after the beginning of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, complemented their diet by hunting and gathering. In a sense, we still do. There are still hunters, and many people go to the woods to collect mushrooms. In the Pre-Pottery Neolithic, when food couldn't be stored easily, hunting and gathering would have been about as important as farming.Not necessarily. They could go hunting because of hunting instinct and not from real need. I have friends who still go hunting in 21 century, every time they can. They bring deer or wild boar and they eat the meat. Of course not from necessity. I have friends who go fishing, and I do it sometimes too, not from need for food, but from joy of the experience. We go pick mushrooms, again from joy doing it and taste for mushrooms alone, and not from need of extra nutrients. It can only be explained by h-g instinct still present in us. From efficiency point of view, all this time spend on walking and finding wild food, is more efficiently used when food is cultivated around the house, and animals tended close by.
Farming versus hunting is not about lifestyle, it is about survival of offspring.
Anyway my point is that, because they still hunted this doesn't mean that they didn't herd sheep, cows or pigs already. There many pig bones in Gobelki Tepe. How do we know they hunted them and not herded them? In this time period wild pig and domesticated one looked exactly the same and had same genome.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 20:17
Maciamo, This is not just T1* but also negative for: T1a1-Z526, T1a1a-CTS9163, T1a1a-CTS2607, T1a2-S11611, T1a2-Y6031, T1a2a1-P322, T1a3a-Y9189. This mean that the sample can't belong to T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3a. So with our actual knowledge, only fit T1a3b, T1b and T1*.
T1a3b: Rarest than T1b, found only in Iraq and North European Plain.
T1b (T1*(xM70)): Found in 1-Macedonia, 2.1-Berbers from Sejnane 2.2-Syria, Druzes from Lebanon, Upper Egypt and Iberian Peninsula (admixed population from Colombia). Actually one sample tested for BigY and waiting for YFull results.
T1*: There is only found T1b, we have no knowledge of the existance of any other branch.

Statistically the chances of it being T1b or T1* are higher.

All T1 would have expanded from the same region but this region is not where a PPNB sample have been found more than 15000 years after of T1-L206 first appeared. Natufians have 0% of T1, so the chances of coming from the north are higher.

Why do you ignore T1a*? Surely if it can be T1a3b, it can also be T1a* and even T1a3*.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 20:21
Not necessarily. They could go hunting because of hunting instinct and not from real need. I have friends who still go hunting in 21 century, every time they can. They bring deer or wild boar and they eat the meat. Of course not from necessity. I have friends who go fishing, and I do it sometimes too, not from need for food, but from joy of the experience. We go pick mushrooms, again from joy doing it and taste for mushrooms alone, and not from need of extra nutrients. It can only be explained by h-g instinct still present in us. From efficiency point of view, all this time spend on walking and finding wild food, is more efficiently used when food is cultivated around the house, and animals tended close by.

That just illustrates how strongly the hunting, fishing and gathering instincts are ingrained in our instincts.


Farming versus hunting is not about lifestyle, it is about survival of offspring.
Anyway my point is that, because they still hunted this doesn't mean that they didn't herd sheep, cows or pigs already. There many pig bones in Gobelki Tepe. How do we know they hunted them and not herded them? In this time period wild pig and domesticated one looked exactly the same and had same genome.

That's what I was trying to say. Any food production method is good for survival, and what we usually call farmers are people who can farm (at least a few crops) but can and do also gather, fish and hunt, and may keep domesticated animals.

Maciamo
21-01-17, 20:35
As I pointed out, there is a 1,500 year gap between the appearence of Megalithism and the arrival of the agricultural Neolithic in Western Europe. If there was a maritime excursion from the Levant to Europe in 7,000 B.C., I'm almost certain we'd see an early Neolithic revolution at these sites, considering that Europe was virgin territory for farmers. Instead, the spread of agriculture in Europe has a quite linear east-to-west trajectory starting in the Aegean, with an expected late arrival in far Western Europe.

There could be hundreds of reasons why Levantine farmers didn't colonise Iberia from 7,000 BCE. At the time the Sahara was wet and green and could have been far more appealing, especially considering its vastness and direct connection with their ancestral Levant. There are almost certainly plenty of Neolithic sites lying deep under the Sahara desert now. Conditions in Iberia might not have been good a the time, perhaps due to the climate or because Mesolithic locals were too hostile. Why haven't the Vikings colonised North America after discovering it? They were the fiercest fighters in Europe at the time and surely it's not a bunch of thinly scattered Mesolithic Amerindians that would have deterred them. Were they just not interested? Was it too far from home? Not fertile enough? Did they have bad crops one year and decided to leave, never to return? It could have been any of those reasons for Neolithic farmers too.

Or maybe they did colonise southern Iberia from 7,000 BCE by we haven't uncovered or properly dated the sites yet. I haven't been able to find a lot of information about the dating of La Almagra Pottery. Why is that? Did archaeologists think it was too early to be credible and preferred to drop the dates rather than risk sounding ridiculous in they eyes of their colleagues? It wouldn't be a first. I am just getting started on the hypotheses that could explain it. I am not going to write an essay about it. Just use your imagination.

While we are on the subject, here is some information about La Almagra culture (http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=ancient_iberia). They mention notably:

- "The Carbon 14 dates of the Andalusian sites, mostly caves, date back to the first half of the 6th millennium BCE, being therefore by far the oldest known Neolithic culture in Western Europe."

=> It predates the Cardium Pottery in Iberia and nobody knows where they came from if not the Levant. That may be because earlier Neolithic cultures in North Africa are now lost under the Sahara.

- "Its origins are uncertain. Cereals and legumes found on the sites are of an evolved agricultural form, but there are no signs of domesticated animals other than pigs and rabbits, both impossible to differentiate from their wild relatives. There are also an abundance of olive seeds in their settlements, in what may be the earliest archaeological reference to its use and consumption, though it seems we are still talking about the wild variety of this tree."

=> If there is no sign of domesticated cattle, then La Almagra was probably not established by R1b-V88 people. Anyway, if R1b-V88 herders left the Levant before 6,000 BCE, they wouldn't have had any pottery, which makes it much harder to find traces of them. The Neolithic R1b-V88 from Iberia was actually found in the Catalan Pyrenees, a region with no connection to La Almagra. Yet it was already so much north during the La Almagra period, so it must have arrived earlier.

- "If the people of southwestern Iberia adopted Neolithic techniques c. 5000 BCE, a few generations later (c. 4800 BCE, according to Portugese archaeologists) they start producing funerary architecture: dolmens. The first dolmens already had corridors at the entrance, the simple dolmen (without corridor) being a later development. It is thought that the first of these tombs were from Alentejo (Portugal), and soon expanded to nearby areas. Yet its great expansion into other parts of Atlantic Europe would only happen one thousand years later."

=> Same question here. Why did they wait 1,000 years before expanding?- Additionally, La Almagra Pottery is unrelated to other types of Neolithic ceramics in Europe, but there was a similar kind of pottery in the Levant at the time.


With Atlit Yam submerged already in the pre-pottery Neolithic, there must have been an almost complete break from this tradition in the Levant for several millennia.

Or most Megaliths were destroyed or re-used for later constructions. Even the superb Colosseum in Rome was pillaged by locals for marble during the Middle Ages. Look at what is happening at Palmyra now, with those moronic ISIS fighter destroying their World Heritage sites. If people have no respect even for the most grandiose aspect of their own heritage, even in the 21st century, what prevented people in the last 10,000 years from re-using some rough monoliths?

Alpenjager
21-01-17, 20:37
Why do you ignore T1a*? Surely if it can be T1a3b, it can also be T1a* and even T1a3*.

Any T1* could be perfectly T1a* as well as T1a3b because of that I have not mentioned T1a*. Anyway, I believe that is very unlikely that a fourth brother lineage survived since 16000 ybp, even the three brothers known to have live descendants are miraculous. I think there is not too much haplogroups with 3 live brother branches dated of the same time.

Alpenjager
21-01-17, 21:05
Any T1* could be perfectly T1a* as well as T1a3b because of that I have not mentioned T1a*. Anyway, I believe that is very unlikely that a fourth brother lineage survived since 16000 ybp, even the three brothers known to have live descendants are miraculous. I think there is not too much haplogroups with 3 live brother branches dated of the same time.

And If we go to think on possible upstream branch between T1a and T1a1/T1a2/T1a3, we should wait for T1b results in Yfull and see the time margin between M70 and their three branches.

LeBrok
21-01-17, 21:33
That just illustrates how strongly the hunting, fishing and gathering instincts are ingrained in our instincts.



That's what I was trying to say. Any food production method is good for survival, and what we usually call farmers are people who can farm (at least a few crops) but can and do also gather, fish and hunt, and may keep domesticated animals.Yep, it is hard to erase 2 million years of being h-g in 10 k years of farming.

Angela
21-01-17, 21:42
Right and as genetics so far are telling us this are two separate routes the farming coming from Anatolia through the Balkans so far majority tested G2a,whereas E1b1b through north Africa-Iberia,the same route was probably for R1b-V88 too,we found them in Africa.They are missing from the Neolithic Balkans.
If they came the same route as the farmers did,we would have find their trace so far.

So far as I'm aware, what genetics is showing us is that the Early Neolithic spread from the junction of Anatolia/northern Syria to the islands. At some point the stream bifurcated, with some continuing by sea in a series of hops to the western Mediterranean, and others continuing on into the Balkans and further. All the early farmer genomes, no matter the yDna, are, from autosomal analysis, extremely similar. The differences start to appear in Europe, depending on how much local h-g they absorbed, and of what sub-types.

The Neolithic did indeed also spread west along the southern coast of the Med, but I'm unaware of any samples indicating that E-V13 took that route. Indeed, the immediate pre-cursor of E-V13, E-M78 according to some people, was found in a Cardial site in Europe, which is part of the westward movement of the Neolithic along the northern Mediterranean coast, nothing to do with North Africa. We then find E-M78 in Lengyel just north of the Balkans, along with J2, perhaps having arrived with a later stream of the Neolithic from the Near East. I don't see any difficulty with some R1b-V88 also being caught up in that stream, although time will tell. Ancient dna trumps everything.

As for hunting and gathering in Neolithic cultures, it's very much dependent on the region and time. Some Neolithic communities continued to hunt and gather to supplement their diets, while some did almost none* of it. A lot of factors seem to have been at play, including climate, landscape, crop failures, sociological and ritual developments etc. Perhaps, when farmers first arrived, and before farming was fully established, they may have needed more hunting to supplement their diets. There would also have been more game at that time. Once farming was well established, game would become more scarce. Or, on the other hand, it may be that the earliest farmers to arrive in Europe hunted less because domesticated crops and animals had a very strong ritual significance, and they hunted and fished only with the absorption of some local h-gs.

In that regard, in some areas they totally eschewed freshwater fish, which you would think would have been a primary resource when crops failed. In "A Mediterranean Village", John Robb opines that perhaps the eating of grain and domesticated animals had a religious connotation and wild game did not.* Given all we've read about Mesolithic peoples in Europe eating large quantities of fish, perhaps it was associated with them. In other areas, instead, including near the Iron Gates, where the farmers did apparently absorb some h-g's, they did consume fish.

*See:
https://books.google.com/books?id=0HeNr9h56uEC&q=fish#v=snippet&q=fish&f=false

On the other hand, the climate crisis at the end of the Neolithic in the Balkans means that, according to some scholars, some farming groups moved east and incorporated a lot more hunting into their subsistence strategies.

One size doesn't fit all.

(Oh, there apparently isn't very much difficulty at all in distinguishing domestic from wild pig.)

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe
8392

https://www.academia.edu/203832/False_Dichotomies_Balkan_Neolithic_hunting_in_arch aeological_context

So far as I know, no domesticated plant or animal remains have yet been found at Gobekli Tepe.
https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2016/06/22/how-old-ist-it-dating-gobekli-tepe/

Ed. * above

Valerius
21-01-17, 21:58
That is what I've been told about my haplogroup E-M123* that it came from the Levant trough the med. road to Northwestern Iberia where its still present there. Seems plausible explanation that this movemnt of people was connected to this culture.

Milan.M
21-01-17, 22:13
So far as I'm aware, what genetics is showing us is that the Early Neolithic spread from the junction of Anatolia/northern Syria to the islands. At some point the stream bifurcated, with some continuing by sea in a series of hops to the western Mediterranean, and others continuing on into the Balkans and further. All the early farmer genomes, no matter the yDna, are, from autosomal analysis, extremely similar. The differences start to appear in Europe, depending on how much local h-g they absorbed, and of what sub-types.

The Neolithic did indeed also spread west along the southern coast of the Med, but I'm unaware of any samples indicating that E-V13 took that route. Indeed, the immediate pre-cursor of E-V13, E-M78 according to some people, was found in a Cardial site in Europe, which is part of the westward movement of the Neolithic along the northern Mediterranean coast, nothing to do with North Africa. We then find E-M78 in Lengyel just north of the Balkans, along with J2, perhaps having arrived with a later stream of the Neolithic from the Near East. I don't see any difficulty with some R1b-V88 also being caught up in that stream, although time will tell. Ancient dna trumps everything.
Without genetic finds i really found nothing conclusive that this haplogroups are responsible for Cardial culture and westward spread from northern Syria,i can choose any other haplogroup and say the same.I know that E1b1b was found in Iberia but not in Balkans and Lengyel is really north of Balkans and have nothing with Mediteranean coast or westward movement could as well be eastward in my opinion.
It has to do with north Africa because this haplogroup is most frequent there,also R1b-V88 is present in Africa.

Angela
21-01-17, 22:23
Without genetic finds i really found nothing conclusive that this haplogroups are responsible for Cardial culture and westward spread from northern Syria,i can choose any other haplogroup and say the same.I know that E1b1b was found in Iberia but not in Balkans and Lengyel is really north of Balkans and have nothing with Mediteranean coast or westward movement in my opinion.

Milan, I didn't say that this branch of "E" was "responsible" for Cardial, but, as a sample related to E-M13 was found in that Cardial site in Spain, the most parsimonious explanation is that it moved to western Europe along the northern Mediterranean with Cardial groups, which themselves came from the Near East. We have no similar proof that it moved along the southern Mediterranean coast and then into Spain. If you had a pre-E-V13 sample from North Africa, from a culture that shows movement into Spain, that would be a different thing.

As for Lengyel, it is an outgrowth of the Balkan cultures to its south, which themselves stem from the Near Eastern Neolithic, and would have reached the Lengyel area through the Balkans. Again, nothing to do with North Africa. It was accompanied by J2.

Sile
21-01-17, 22:37
As far as I can recall, the earliest farming in the fertile Crescent was ~9000BC

R1-v88 passed by at the same time as farming began...........T1 passed by 4000 years before ..........clearly any marker/haplogroup earlier than 9000BC was a pure 100% hunter

As for herders, what use are they without farmers being around?

Milan.M
21-01-17, 22:46
Milan, I didn't say that this branch of "E" was "responsible" for Cardial, but, as a sample related to E-M13 was found in that Cardial site in Spain, the most parsimonious explanation is that it moved to western Europe along the northern Mediterranean with Cardial groups, which themselves came from the Near East. We have no similar proof that it moved along the southern Mediterranean coast and then into Spain. If you had a pre-E-V13 sample from North Africa, from a culture that shows movement into Spain, that would be a different thing.

As for Lengyel, it is an outgrowth of the Balkan cultures to its south, which themselves stem from the Near Eastern Neolithic, and would have reached the Lengyel area through the Balkans. Again, nothing to do with North Africa. It was accompanied by J2.
What i thought is that this haplogroup entered Iberia from north Africa and moved eastward,along Mediterranean,rather different hypothesis.Still i can make this hypothesis as long we don't find it's presence in the Adriatic or Greece for example in early stage or earlier than as found in Iberia if they went this route.The case could be similar with R1b V88 because we found it in Africa,likewise E is most frequent in north Africa.
For example this is about Cardial

So the first Cardial settlers in the Adriatic may have come directly from the Levant. Of course it might equally well have come directly from North Africa, and impressed-pottery also appears in Egypt. Along the East Mediterranean coast Impressed Ware has been found in North Syria, Palestine and Lebanon
Also i think that culture can influence another culture without much genetic change,but rather groups adopting their way of life.

LeBrok
21-01-17, 23:40
If early megaliths were confined to Anatolia and the Levante I'd be inclined to agree. In Europe however there is a significant gap. The Sicilian megalith became submerged in uncal. 9350 ± 200 year B.P., Impressed Ware and agriculture arrive in 6000 B.C.E. . The Portuguese megalith is dated to uncal. 9097 ± 445 year B.P., while the first traces of agriculture appear in 5600 - 5000 B.C.E. .
I don't have time to check everything, though it is very interesting subject which I never learned in detail, but a quick search into Portuguese megalith brings different point of you than yours. It seems to be a Neolithic creation.

The construction of these structures date back to the 6th millennium BC, though they were only rediscovered in 1966 by Henrique Leonor Pina, who was proceeding with field work relating to the country's geological charts.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech#cite_note-IGESPAR-1)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech#cite_note-crookscape1-3)[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech#cite_note-SIPA-5) The excavation of the site unearthed a series of both megalithic and neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) construction phases; Almendres I 6000 BC (Early Neolithic), Almendres II 5000 BC (Middle Neolithic), Almendres III 4000 BC (Late Neolithic). The relative chronology of the cromlech and menhirs is extremely complex and covers a period from the Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic) to Chalcolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcolithic), and it is believed that the monument had a religious/ceremonial purpose, or functioned as a primitive astronomical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy) observatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almendres_Cromlech

MarkoZ
22-01-17, 00:12
I don't have time to check everything, though it is very interesting subject which I never learned in detail, but a quick search into Portuguese megalith brings different point of you than yours. It seems to be a Neolithic creation.

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

It's not like I have a particular narrative to sell with regards to pre-Neolithic megaliths - there's no reason whatsoever for me to try to mislead people.

The megalith in question is the Quinta da Queimada menir. For your convenience:


For the OSL date (David Calado et al. 2003)obtained from the socket of a menhir at Quinta daQueimada in the western Algarve, the biggest problem is the great antiquity of the sample. The result was an age of 9095 ± 445 years BT (Shfd 02014), suggesting that, with 95.4 % probability, the soil that filled the implantation pit was last exposed to light between 7983 and 6203 BCE, a period that ought to be relatedto the original erection of the standing stone.” (Caladoet al. 2010 : 7)This age raises interpretive problems that are difficult to accommodate within the model whichrelates the origin of megaliths in Europe to the Neolithic transition.

https://www.academia.edu/17114876/Menhirs_of_Portugal_All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front

This was published before the discovery of the Sicilian megalith that was dated to the same period.

Northener
22-01-17, 00:15
I have hypothesised for several years that the wave of Neolithic farmers who came from the southern Levant through North Africa brought a quite different set of haplogroups and autosomal admixture than the Anatolian farmers that colonised the Balkans and Central Europe.


I noticed that samples from the Funnelbeaker culture (http://www.eupedia.com/genetics/funnelbeaker_culture.shtml) in Scandinavia, which was a Megalithic culture, had an inordinate amount of Sub-Saharan African autosomal DNA (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33084-African-admixture-in-ancient-Germanic-Scandinavian-people). That made me wonder how it could have got there. My explanation was that it came from Iberian Megalithic people, who in turn got it from Neolithic farmers from North Africa.
....
Haplogroup E1b1b was the main lineage of the Natufians (Mesolithic southern Levant). They might have carried a mix of E-V123, E-Z827 and E-M78. Levantine Neolithic farmers would undoubtedly have carried this lineage when they colonised North and East Africa, although it very likely that E1b1b was already present on both sides of the Red Sea before the Neolithic. A small minority of Western Europeans carry E-V12 and E-V22 lineages (under M78), which could be of Neolithic origin. Likewise, E-M123 could have spread through North Africa to Western Europe, as well as again later (Bronze and Iron Ages) from the Near East to Greece and Italy.


Nice thesis!

About E-M78/E-V22, you draw the line further which Wim Penninx and I supposed a year ago:
http://e-v22.net/descendants/

Otherwise still much doubt, in the Netherlands above the Rhine, indeed megalith territory, only two known cases of E-V22 in 'indigenous families'. But I must say that E-V22 is also found (sporadic) in megalith southern England, Ireland....

LeBrok
22-01-17, 00:32
It's not like I have a particular narrative to sell with regards to pre-Neolithic megaliths - there's no reason whatsoever for me to try to mislead people.

The megalith in question is the Quinta da Queimada menir. For your convenience:



https://www.academia.edu/17114876/Menhirs_of_Portugal_All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front

This was published before the discovery of the Sicilian megalith that was dated to the same period.I guess we can agree that dating stone erection is a bit fuzzy business. In this case, when I look at this problem from other angles, like needed manpower, technological advance, domestication of animals (like oxen to pull heavy rocks possibly), specialisation of needed trades, caloric/energy need and supply (starch/sugar) in food to do labour intensive work, massive stone tools and ropes production, need for a calendar for farmers, sophistication of religion, first stone structures in fertile crescent and prime farmlands of Neolithic, this all tells me farmer, farmer, farmer.

MarkoZ
22-01-17, 00:58
I guess we can agree that dating stone erection is a bit fuzzy business. In this case, when I look at this problem from other angles, like needed manpower, technological advance, domestication of animals (like oxen to pull heavy rocks possibly), specialisation of needed trades, caloric/energy need and supply (starch/sugar) in food to do labour intensive work, massive stone tools and ropes production, need for a calendar for farmers, sophistication of religion, first stone structures in fertile crescent and prime farmlands of Neolithic, this all tells me farmer, farmer, farmer.

I don't think it's more contentious than, say, the dating of metal objects. Keep in mind that in this particular case we have the Portuguese menir that was dated the traditional way and the Sicilian menir that must have been submerged around 9,000 B. P. based on the development of sea levels, yielding a terminus ante quem for the erection that predates agriculture by a good margin.

As for Göbeklitepe, I guess the problem is that the fertile crescent has developed into a sort of myth of its own. In the relevant time period the inhabitants of this site must have still been unfamiliar with agricultural methods. Wheat and barley was first to domesticated in the southern Levant - the inhabitants of the northern fertile crescent and, by extension, the people who spread agriculture into Europe weren't the same as those who 'invented' agriculture.

MOESAN
22-01-17, 01:17
Nice thesis!

About E-M78/E-V22, you draw the line further which Wim Penninx and I supposed a year ago:
http://e-v22.net/descendants/


Otherwise still much doubt, in the Netherlands above the Rhine, indeed megalith territory, only two known cases of E-V22 in 'indigenous families'. But I must say that E-V22 is also found (sporadic) in megalith southern England, Ireland....

I lack haplos and auDNA for megalithers in diverse parts of Europe - could you please give me some data it you have them? It's a very important question. THanks in advance.

LeBrok
22-01-17, 01:38
I don't think it's more contentious than, say, the dating of metal objects. Keep in mind that in this particular case we have the Portuguese menir that was dated the traditional way and the Sicilian menir that must have been submerged around 9,000 B. P. based on the development of sea levels, yielding a terminus ante quem for the erection that predates agriculture by a good margin.Any less enigmatic stones to prove your point? Anything more conclusive that it was the work of h-gs?
Besides, one stone in the ground can be work of h-gs, tens or hundreds stones or elaborate stone temple definitely not.


As for Göbeklitepe, I guess the problem is that the fertile crescent has developed into a sort of myth of its own. In the relevant time period the inhabitants of this site must have still been unfamiliar with agricultural methods. Wheat and barley was first to domesticated in the southern Levant - the inhabitants of the northern fertile crescent and, by extension, the people who spread agriculture into Europe weren't the same as those who 'invented' agriculture.Really? 20km from Gobekli they found domesticated wheat dated at 10.5 kya, only 500 years later than beginning of building Gobekli stones. Is this not relevant?
If we have domesticated grain from this area at 10.5 kya, does it mean that domestication had to start much earlier? Before 11kya, when Gobekli barely started?

MarkoZ
22-01-17, 01:59
Any less enigmatic stones to prove your point? Anything more conclusive that it was the work of h-gs?

Well, all of this is by defintion all about enigmatic stones. No need to get into a heated argument though.

LeBrok
22-01-17, 02:54
Well, all of this is by defintion all about enigmatic stones. No need to get into a heated argument though.One stone in the ground can be work of h-gs, tens or hundreds stones or elaborate stone temple definitely not.

bicicleur
22-01-17, 09:38
Not necessarily. They could go hunting because of hunting instinct and not from real need. I have friends who still go hunting in 21 century, every time they can. They bring deer or wild boar and they eat the meat. Of course not from necessity. I have friends who go fishing, and I do it sometimes too, not from need for food, but from joy of the experience. We go pick mushrooms, again from joy doing it and taste for mushrooms alone, and not from need of extra nutrients. It can only be explained by h-g instinct still present in us. From efficiency point of view, all this time spend on walking and finding wild food, is more efficiently used when food is cultivated around the house, and animals tended close by.
Farming versus hunting is not about lifestyle, it is about survival of offspring.
Anyway my point is that, because they still hunted this doesn't mean that they didn't herd sheep, cows or pigs already. There many pig bones in Gobelki Tepe. How do we know they hunted them and not herded them? In this time period wild pig and domesticated one looked exactly the same and had same genome.

PPNA Natufians didn't have domesticates nor dairy products.
They survived on cereals, pulses, fruits and nuts.
They were very low on proteins.
Some meat from the gazelle hunt was more than wellcome, allthough maybe only accessible to the elite.
In PPNB, when they had goats many tribes stopped hunting.

Northener
22-01-17, 12:20
I lack haplos and auDNA for megalithers in diverse parts of Europe - could you please give me some data it you have them? It's a very important question. THanks in advance.

My compagnon is the real fact and figures man. He's working on it. Here some pre- elementary collection:
http://e-v22.net/webpage/E1b-V22Studies-list.html

Maciamo
22-01-17, 12:33
Any T1* could be perfectly T1a* as well as T1a3b because of that I have not mentioned T1a*. Anyway, I believe that is very unlikely that a fourth brother lineage survived since 16000 ybp, even the three brothers known to have live descendants are miraculous. I think there is not too much haplogroups with 3 live brother branches dated of the same time.

Why a fourth brother lineage? What I was trying to explain was that 50 to 90% of Early Neolithic male lineages are now extinct. That's why there are lots of *. If all the know modern SNPs are tested, the * shows that there are no other mutations shared with modern people and therefore that this lineage is extinct. In living people the * only means that they didn't test all Y-chromosomal SNPs (e.g. through BigY or a full genomic test) and that that individual's deep clade hasn't been identified yet. Of course we could also find new branches among ancient samples, but if they didn't survive to the present they are meaningless. There would be thousands of extinct subclades.

Maciamo
22-01-17, 12:37
PPNA Natufians didn't have domesticates nor dairy products.
They survived on cereals, pulses, fruits and nuts.
They were very low on proteins.
Some meat from the gazelle hunt was more than wellcome, allthough maybe only accessible to the elite.
In PPNB, when they had goats many tribes stopped hunting.

I doubt that in PPNA society meat was mainly reserved to the elite. They were closer to HG tribes than to agrarian civilisations. As you said, they only had a few crops, and those crops would have mostly complemented their ancestral hunter-gatherer diet, not the other way round. They were hunter-gatherers who did some basic cultivation on the side to diversify their diet, not farmers who hunted occasionally. Gazelles almost became extinct in the Middle East around 2500 BCE because Neolithic, Chalcolithic and EBA people kept hunting them regularly, despite having plenty of meat available from domesticated animals. PPBA Natufians who lacked domesticates would badly have needed meat from hunting. HG used to eating meat all the time cannot become vegetarian over a few generations.

bicicleur
22-01-17, 15:13
I doubt that in PPNA society meat was mainly reserved to the elite. They were closer to HG tribes than to agrarian civilisations. As you said, they only had a few crops, and those crops would have mostly complemented their ancestral hunter-gatherer diet, not the other way round. They were hunter-gatherers who did some basic cultivation on the side to diversify their diet, not farmers who hunted occasionally. Gazelles almost became extinct in the Middle East around 2500 BCE because Neolithic, Chalcolithic and EBA people kept hunting them regularly, despite having plenty of meat available from domesticated animals. PPBA Natufians who lacked domesticates would badly have needed meat from hunting. HG used to eating meat all the time cannot become vegetarian over a few generations.

yes, but in the Jordan Valley, north of the Dead Sea (Jericho, Netiv Hagdud, Gilgal, ..) the situation may have reversed quite quickly
it is an area on the edge of the steppe, near the desert where probably supluses of cereals could be produced (there were storage facilities), and cereals probably became a commoditiy over there
it has been suggested that the first domesticated cereals in the Tepecik area, which exported obsidian, was not grown there, but got there through trade
it all depends on how these societies were organised and whether an elite emerged with control over the lower castes or not

Northener
22-01-17, 16:05
Why a fourth brother lineage? What I was trying to explain was that 50 to 90% of Early Neolithic male lineages are now extinct. That's why there are lots of *. If all the know modern SNPs are tested, the * shows that there are no other mutations shared with modern people and therefore that this lineage is extinct. In living people the * only means that they didn't test all Y-chromosomal SNPs (e.g. through BigY or a full genomic test) and that that individual's deep clade hasn't been identified yet. Of course we could also find new branches among ancient samples, but if they didn't survive to the present they are meaningless. There would be thousands of extinct subclades.

Let's suppose E-V22 is an Early Neolithic marker which spread the neolithic from the Mediterranean to Northwestern Europe. Than indeed there is some full gnome evidence. Look at the latest Y-Full tree: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-V22/
My specific deep clade is E-PH2818, my family shares this tree with a family from Wales and from Puerto Rico (=Iberian?).
So....

Angela
22-01-17, 16:46
There's a difference between plant (and animal) cultivation, and domestication. Certain sites in the southern Levant have shown that the people were storing large quantities of still wild cereals. The first actual domestication took place north of there.

"The earliest securely identified and dated examples of domestic emmer and einkorn come from sites in the Upper Euphrates valley such as Çayönü, Nevali Çori, and possibly Cafer Höyük (figure 2). These samples have been dated to about 10,500-10,200 cal BP during the Early PPNB, and indicate that emmer and einkorn domestication was well underway in the Fertile Crescent (Zohary et al, 2012: 42; Zeder, 2011: s224). The earliest domesticated barley was found in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolian Plateau from the Middle PPNB period at sites such as Tell Aswad (c. 10,200-9,550 cal BP) (Zohary, et al, 2012: 56). These discoveries have largely overturned previous acceptances that domesticated cereals first appeared in a core area in the southern Levant and subsequently spread out throughout the Near East (Zeder, 2011: s224)."

8397
https://www.academia.edu/1529206/Evidence_for_the_Appearance_of_Plant_Cultivation_a nd_Domestication_in_the_Neolithic_Near_East

As for how much hunting (and fishing, where appropriate) contributed to the diet of early Neolithic communities, it varied by time and place, but it's quite surprising to me how little hunting, or fishing, was done by some Neolithic groups. It's been proposed that it may have been(because domesticates acquired a quasi-religious or perhaps ritual significance.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

"Yet, despite a strong correlation between the LBK and the northwestward spread of domestic animals,there is regional and temporal variation in the relative frequencies of the key economic animal taxa (i.e., cattle, sheep, goat, pigs and wild game). These differences have been well documented at the regional scale of zooarchaeological analyses and a number of likely causal factors, including ecology, climate and culture, have been implicated."
8398

8399


Fishing seems to have been particularly eschewed, as John Robb notes in his book "The Mediterranean Village".
https://books.google.com/books?id=0HeNr9h56uEC&q=fish#v=snippet&q=fish&f=false

In some European areas there was more hunting/gathering than in others. The local landscape probably had something to do with it, how successful the crops were, how much game was actually available, how quickly it was depleted. I also wonder if it was dependent on how many local h-gs were absorbed. For example, the communities around the Iron Gates seem to have fished quite extensively, and that's also where it has been proposed that some local h-gs were incorporated into the community.

MarkoZ
22-01-17, 17:16
There's a difference between plant (and animal) cultivation, and domestication. Certain sites in the southern Levant have shown that the people were storing large quantities of still wild cereals. The first actual domestication took place north of there.

"The earliest securely identified and dated examples of domestic emmer and einkorn come from sites in the Upper Euphrates valley such as Çayönü, Nevali Çori, and possibly Cafer Höyük (figure 2). These samples have been dated to about 10,500-10,200 cal BP during the Early PPNB, and indicate that emmer and einkorn domestication was well underway in the Fertile Crescent (Zohary et al, 2012: 42; Zeder, 2011: s224). The earliest domesticated barley was found in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolian Plateau from the Middle PPNB period at sites such as Tell Aswad (c. 10,200-9,550 cal BP) (Zohary, et al, 2012: 56). These discoveries have largely overturned previous acceptances that domesticated cereals first appeared in a core area in the southern Levant and subsequently spread out throughout the Near East (Zeder, 2011: s224)."


Seems like an apology to LeBrok is in order. I was genuinely ignorant and stuck in the 'Jordan valley paradigm'.

Northener
22-01-17, 17:22
There's a difference between plant (and animal) cultivation, and domestication. Certain sites in the southern Levant have shown that the people were storing large quantities of still wild cereals. The first actual domestication took place north of there.

"The earliest securely identified and dated examples of domestic emmer and einkorn come from sites in the Upper Euphrates valley such as Çayönü, Nevali Çori, and possibly Cafer Höyük (figure 2). These samples have been dated to about 10,500-10,200 cal BP during the Early PPNB, and indicate that emmer and einkorn domestication was well underway in the Fertile Crescent (Zohary et al, 2012: 42; Zeder, 2011: s224). The earliest domesticated barley was found in the Fertile Crescent and Anatolian Plateau from the Middle PPNB period at sites such as Tell Aswad (c. 10,200-9,550 cal BP) (Zohary, et al, 2012: 56). These discoveries have largely overturned previous acceptances that domesticated cereals first appeared in a core area in the southern Levant and subsequently spread out throughout the Near East (Zeder, 2011: s224)."

8397
https://www.academia.edu/1529206/Evidence_for_the_Appearance_of_Plant_Cultivation_a nd_Domestication_in_the_Neolithic_Near_East

As for how much hunting (and fishing, where appropriate) contributed to the diet of early Neolithic communities, it varied by time and place, but it's quite surprising to me how little hunting, or fishing, was done by some Neolithic groups. It's been proposed that it may have been(because domesticates acquired a quasi-religious or perhaps ritual significance.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Animal_exploitation_in_the_Early_Neolithic_of_the_ Balkans_and_Central_Europe

"Yet, despite a strong correlation between the LBK and the northwestward spread of domestic animals,there is regional and temporal variation in the relative frequencies of the key economic animal taxa (i.e., cattle, sheep, goat, pigs and wild game). These differences have been well documented at the regional scale of zooarchaeological analyses and a number of likely causal factors, including ecology, climate and culture, have been implicated."
8398

8399


Fishing seems to have been particularly eschewed, as John Robb notes in his book "The Mediterranean Village".
https://books.google.com/books?id=0HeNr9h56uEC&q=fish#v=snippet&q=fish&f=false

In some European areas there was more hunting/gathering than in others. The local landscape probably had something to do with it, how successful the crops were, how much game was actually available, how quickly it was depleted. I also wonder if it was dependent on how many local h-gs were absorbed. For example, the communities around the Iron Gates seem to have fished quite extensively, and that's also where it has been proposed that some local h-gs were incorporated into the community.

I guess there are more ways leading to Rome. Maciamo is sketching the neolithic route from the Levant through the Mediterranean via the Atlantic coast upwards. There is also the possibility of an inland route through the Balkan, by the grand rivers, to central Europe and further. When I zoom out you can see in the different spread of E-V13 and E-V22. E-V13 more, Balkan, inland and his far nephew E-V22 the sea route (sublclade E-PH2818 Iberia and than to Wales and Frisia)!?

Angela
22-01-17, 18:11
Seems like an apology to LeBrok is in order. I was genuinely ignorant and stuck in the 'Jordan valley paradigm'.

This is just the latest research of which I'm aware, Marko. There may be something more recent that changes the picture. Archaeology isn't a static discipline after all.

If someone knows of any such studies which contradict the above, please correct the record.

One of the most important take aways for me about the early Neolithic is, as I said above, the difference between cultivation and domestication. The people of the southern Levant, for example, were living in settled villages, transplanting plants and tending fields of cereals, harvesting and storing hundreds and thousands of seeds, making bread etc. for hundreds and thousands of years before the first actual domestication took place. Grain stores have been found at Ohala that date to 23,000 years ago.

So, they did have a certain amount of social organization and cooperation. Their took kit was still pretty primitive however. The housing in the Natufian was built of brush in a lot of cases. It was only in the next period that clay was used.

Gobekli Tepe is still a puzzle to me.

bicicleur
22-01-17, 18:31
Seems like an apology to LeBrok is in order. I was genuinely ignorant and stuck in the 'Jordan valley paradigm'.

the paper makes a difference between cultivation (e.g. Natufian and PPNA) and domestication (which occured not earlier than PPNB)
this does not contradict the fact that cultiviation of cereals happened in Jordan Valley and Middle/Upper Euphrates during PPNA, they even had granaries :

Sedentism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedentism) of this time allowed for the cultivation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture) of local grains, such as barley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barley) and wild oats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avena), and for storage in granaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granary). Sites such as Dhra′ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhra%E2%80%B2) and Jericho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho) retained a hunting lifestyle until the PPNB period, but granaries allowed for year-round occupation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Pottery_Neolithic_A#Crop_cultivation_and_granaries

afaik no or little cereals or grains were cultivated east of the Euphrates, there the emphasis before PPNB was on pulses and ovicaprids

IMO PPNB is a gradual merger of the Levant & Upper Euphrate (Natufian) people with the people from the Eastern Taurus Mts & the Zagros Mts

bicicleur
22-01-17, 18:35
Gobekli Tepe is still a puzzle to me.

to me too, the map in the paper says 'inferred cultivation' happened there, but it doesn't give a date nor what crops was cultivated there

Alpenjager
22-01-17, 18:46
Why a fourth brother lineage? What I was trying to explain was that 50 to 90% of Early Neolithic male lineages are now extinct. That's why there are lots of *. If all the know modern SNPs are tested, the * shows that there are no other mutations shared with modern people and therefore that this lineage is extinct. In living people the * only means that they didn't test all Y-chromosomal SNPs (e.g. through BigY or a full genomic test) and that that individual's deep clade hasn't been identified yet. Of course we could also find new branches among ancient samples, but if they didn't survive to the present they are meaningless. There would be thousands of extinct subclades.

Actually, this will remain as a speculation and we don't know with certainity how much of these ancient samples belong or not to extinct lineages. Also we should remember that a lot of these "modern SNPs" did not exist in ancient times. Anyway there are a lot of ancient samples, like those belonging to T1a1*/T1a* in Karsdorf, that are not tested properly for most of the known SNPs up to date. So there is no way with the available information to know if these ancient samples belong to a extinct branch or not.

bicicleur
22-01-17, 18:46
My compagnon is the real fact and figures man. He's working on it. Here some pre- elementary collection:
http://e-v22.net/webpage/E1b-V22Studies-list.html

I understand it is a work in progress.
Keep me updated.

Northener
22-01-17, 19:22
I understand it is a work in progress.
Keep me updated.

The result up till know, and what is easily distracted from yfull underlines the theory of Maciamo. And I will keep you posted.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
22-01-17, 19:40
I guess there are more ways leading to Rome. Maciamo is sketching the neolithic route from the Levant through the Mediterranean via the Atlantic coast upwards. There is also the possibility of an inland route through the Balkan, by the grand rivers, to central Europe and further. When I zoom out you can see in the different spread of E-V13 and E-V22. E-V13 more, Balkan, inland and his far nephew E-V22 the sea route (sublclade E-PH2818 Iberia and than to Wales and Frisia)!?

No one doubts that there were two major routes of dispersal of the Neolithic into Europe. One went by sea, hopping from place to place to the Western Mediterranean and then up the Atlantic coast. The other landed first in Greece and then the Balkans. In both cases there was movement inland from the coastal areas.
http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-5_societal/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1_peopling-europe/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1-06/Neolithic2reduced.jpg

http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg
http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg

At a certain point the two streams met in the Paris Basin.

I think one of the questions raised here is whether there were significant differences genetically between the people who participated in those two migration streams. From every paper I've seen, and even some of the experimental modeling, they seem to have been remarkably similar, with any differences put down to differential amounts of mixing with local h-gs in Europe.

Y dna is a different issue, although Impressed Ware/Cardial was still heavily G2.

Torsten Gunther et al:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/09/01/072926.full.pdf
8400
Click on above to enlarge.
It can also be found on page nine of the paper.


Olade et al:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VgWw-1Pyk8U/VemlIr2YAMI/AAAAAAAADHU/XK2XmIO_J0Q/s1600/PCA-Olalde-annotated.png


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VgWw-1Pyk8U/VemlIr2YAMI/AAAAAAAADHU/XK2XmIO_J0Q/s1600/PCA-Olalde-annotated.png

You can find Gok 2 above. CO1 is Baden.

Perhaps of interest with respect to the Gok group of Northern farmers:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXffzwQQek0/T5WDLwnr2fI/AAAAAAAAEyY/TuDjzH5UJI0/s1600/allele_sharing.png
The following is based on older calculators so shouldn't be taken as gospel, but I think it's still generally accurate.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FYF9nI6AJqg/T5pwDNFoXdI/AAAAAAAAEzE/D0vnSHSNEBg/s1600/proportions.png

Calculators designed for modern populations are unreliable in terms of SSA admixture in ancient samples, as the below shows. According to this, the most SSA is in Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers. Otzi would have more than Gok, and Otzi is pretty clearly a southeastern European Neolithic farmer genetically even if he is Copper Age, and the ancestry as well as the technology probably owes a great deal to the Balkans.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png

Northener
22-01-17, 20:29
No one doubts that there were two major routes of dispersal of the Neolithic into Europe. One went by sea, hopping from place to place to the Western Mediterranean and then up the Atlantic coast. The other landed first in Greece and then the Balkans. In both cases there was movement inland from the coastal areas.
http://thewaythetruthandthelife.net/index/2_background/2-5_societal/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1_peopling-europe/0-000-043-000-bc-to_2-011-ad_2-5-1-06/Neolithic2reduced.jpg

http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg
http://d10k7sivr61qqr.cloudfront.net/content/royinterface/12/106/20150166/F1.large.jpg

At a certain point the two streams met in the Paris Basin.

I think one of the questions raised here is whether there were significant differences genetically between the people who participated in those two migration streams. From every paper I've seen, and even some of the experimental modeling, they seem to have been remarkably similar, with any differences put down to differential amounts of mixing with local h-gs in Europe.

Y dna is a different issue, although Impressed Ware/Cardial was still heavily G2.

Torsten Gunther et al:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/09/01/072926.full.pdf
8400
Click on above to enlarge.
It can also be found on page nine of the paper.


Olade et al:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VgWw-1Pyk8U/VemlIr2YAMI/AAAAAAAADHU/XK2XmIO_J0Q/s1600/PCA-Olalde-annotated.png


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-VgWw-1Pyk8U/VemlIr2YAMI/AAAAAAAADHU/XK2XmIO_J0Q/s1600/PCA-Olalde-annotated.png

You can find Gok 2 above. CO1 is Baden.

Perhaps of interest with respect to the Gok group of Northern farmers:





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JXffzwQQek0/T5WDLwnr2fI/AAAAAAAAEyY/TuDjzH5UJI0/s1600/allele_sharing.png
The following is based on older calculators so shouldn't be taken as gospel, but I think it's still generally accurate.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FYF9nI6AJqg/T5pwDNFoXdI/AAAAAAAAEzE/D0vnSHSNEBg/s1600/proportions.png

Calculators designed for modern populations are unreliable in terms of SSA admixture in ancient samples, as the below shows. According to this, the most SSA is in Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers. Otzi would have more than Gok, and Otzi is pretty clearly a southeastern European Neolithic farmer genetically even if he is Copper Age, and the ancestry as well as the technology probably owes a great deal to the Balkans.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ZwmxlhXO8-k/T_B9lrlnFJI/AAAAAAAAE7w/My33JaMKr_E/s1600/ancientdna12.png

Inland route and sea route not differentiated?
In the last picture I see a major difference between the Swedish and Northern Italian Farmer, the Swedish one has far more Atlantic Med and far less Caucasus.
And you didn't pay attention to the two subclades of E1b namely E-V22 (sea route) and E-V13 (inland route).
It would be nice if some research could go in debt on this matter.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Neolithic_Expansion.gif

bicicleur
22-01-17, 20:38
LBK and Cardial Ware were the 1st wave of farmers into Europe
and alltough they represent 2 different cultures, the people were genetically quite similar
that is quite clear
but what subsequent waves followed is less clear
also is puzzling where the rising WHG admixture came from, is it local admixture after the 1st wave, or did this additional WHG come from elsewhere?

LeBrok
22-01-17, 20:52
This is just the latest research of which I'm aware, Marko. There may be something more recent that changes the picture. Archaeology isn't a static discipline after all.

If someone knows of any such studies which contradict the above, please correct the record.

One of the most important take aways for me about the early Neolithic is, as I said above, the difference between cultivation and domestication. The people of the southern Levant, for example, were living in settled villages, transplanting plants and tending fields of cereals, harvesting and storing hundreds and thousands of seeds, making bread etc. for hundreds and thousands of years before the first actual domestication took place. Grain stores have been found at Ohala that date to 23,000 years ago.

So, they did have a certain amount of social organization and cooperation. Their took kit was still pretty primitive however. The housing in the Natufian was built of brush in a lot of cases. It was only in the next period that clay was used.

Gobekli Tepe is still a puzzle to me.Right on Angela. To become a fully fledged farmer from h-g is a long transition. In known cases it took thousands of years.

Northener
22-01-17, 20:55
LBK and Cardial Ware were the 1st wave of farmers into Europe
and alltough they represent 2 different cultures, the people were genetically quite similar
that is quite clear
but what subsequent waves followed is less clear
also is puzzling where the rising WHG admixture came from, is it local admixture after the 1st wave, or did this additional WHG come from elsewhere?

Bicicleur, may be when you stand closer to the painting, you can see more differences. Because I did some small study of E-V22 I 've seen that the migration is very differentiated from E-V13 (his far nephew). E-V22 is very cardial and E-V13 very LBK!

LeBrok
22-01-17, 20:59
LBK and Cardial Ware were the 1st wave of farmers into Europe
and alltough they represent 2 different cultures, the people were genetically quite similarThat's right. So if their was other wave of farmers sailing to Spain, they must have come from the same Anatolian Farmer stock, as the ones who got to Balkans.


but what subsequent waves followed is less clear
also is puzzling where the rising WHG admixture came from, is it local admixture after the 1st wave, or did this additional WHG come from elsewhere?It took time till mid Neolithic to mix in all the WHG groups roaming in South and Central Europe. WHG or EHG admixtures stabilized in mid Neolithic and were pretty much the same in Late/Copper Age.

Northener
22-01-17, 21:07
That's right. So if their was other wave of farmers sailing to Spain, they must have come from the same Anatolian Farmer stock, as the ones who got to Balkans.
It took time till mid Neolithic to mix in all the WHG groups roaming in South and Central Europe. WHG or EHG admixtures stabilized in mid Neolithic and were pretty much the same in Late/Copper Age.

As stated an example is E-V13 (LBK) vs E-V22 (Cardial). E-V22 is found on the cardial hotspots, med. island and coast, not related to Anatolian stock!

Northener
22-01-17, 21:10
LBK and Cardial Ware were the 1st wave of farmers into Europe
and alltough they represent 2 different cultures, the people were genetically quite similar
that is quite clear
but what subsequent waves followed is less clear
also is puzzling where the rising WHG admixture came from, is it local admixture after the 1st wave, or did this additional WHG come from elsewhere?

That's right. So if their was other wave of farmers sailing to Spain, they must have come from the same Anatolian Farmer stock, as the ones who got to Balkans.
It took time till mid Neolithic to mix in all the WHG groups roaming in South and Central Europe. WHG or EHG admixtures stabilized in mid Neolithic and were pretty much the same in Late/Copper Age.

See also, Voskarides (2016) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html): “E-V22 and E-M34 are common in the Southern Levant, Sicily, Algeria, and in Egypt and rare in Europe. These lineages, like J2b-M205, could mirror a Pottery Neolithic movement to Cyprus from the Southern Levant (Pearson R 2 coefficient of correlation of E- M34 to longitude: 0.164, p = 0.003)” On of the earliest spread to the Mediterranean is the the so called Impressed (or Cordial) Ware (http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095959309) (7000-5500 ybp). The spread to the Mediterranean could be in several waves up until the so called Phoenicians (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text.html)(3500-2500 ybp)."

Angela
22-01-17, 21:19
Ed. I see LeBrok and Bicicleur have beat me to it.:)


Inland route and sea route not differentiated?
In the last picture I see a major difference between the Swedish and Northern Italian Farmer, the Swedish one has far more Atlantic Med and far less Caucasus.
And you pay attention to the two subclades of E1b namely E-V22 (sea route) and E-V13 (inland route).
It would be nice if some research could go in debt on this matter.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Neolithic_Expansion.gif

My point in posting that Dodecad analysis was to show how misleading it can be to use Admixture calculators created for modern populations to analyze ancient genomes unless you understand subsequent findings. According to that calculator, Otzi, who is definitely a product of the Balkan stream of the Neolithic, has more SSA than Gok, and the most is in European hunter-gatherers, which is the opposite of the assertions made here. I don't know how often it has to be said and demonstrated, but Admixture calculators based on modern modal clusters have to be interpreted very carefully, and with a knowledge of what more recent methods have shown, or they can be very misleading.

You also have to be careful when discussing these Neolithic samples to know whether you are talking about the Early Neolithic of Impressed Ware/Cardial-Balkan Neolithic or you are talking about the Middle Neolithic. They are different, and the differences are the result of differing amounts of local h-g ancestry, not because there were differences among the farmers who came to Europe.

If you go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and carefully re-look at all the graphics, you will see that I was discussing the initial streams of the Neolithic. Those early EEF people, whether in the Balkans, Central Europe, or Iberia, were remarkably similar to the Anatolian Neolithic people, and the Anatolian Neolithic people, who were the ones who went to Europe (actually many of them migrated from the juncture of Anatolia and northern Syria) were almost indistinguishable from one another. There was no Levant Neolithic which went to Europe versus an Anatolian Neolithic. Natufians didn't go to Europe. The major division in terms of early Near Eastern farmers was between the Anatolian Neolithic (which indeed had a chunk of Levant Neolithic in it), and the Iranian Neolithic.

If you look at the Gunther et al graphic above, in particular, you'll see what I mean.

You also might want to take a look at the latest Reich paper on the Neolithic people of the Near East.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/abs/nature19310.html

I don't know if E-V22 was specifically Cardial versus E-V13 being specifically Balkan. I would say not, as the precursor of E-V13 is found in a Cardial setting in Spain, and Cardial moved from there all the way to the Paris Basin and elsewhere. Even if E-V22 was limited to Cardial, I don't see how it matters. Some differences in y Dna are to be expected. They don't translate into autosomal differences. Autosomally, these people were all very similar. We have many, many papers, and many autosomal analyses of these people to prove it. That's why I2a farmers and I1 farmers are identical to G2a farmers.

E-V22 could also definitely have reached certain areas of Europe with later migrations, some historical. Some could have come with Phoenicians, maybe some with North Africans during the Roman Era and later. I don't see any difficulty with North African troops under the Romans spreading it to northern Europe. They were stationed in Britain and along the borders with Germania.

Northener
22-01-17, 21:24
Ed. I see LeBrok and Bicicleur have beat me to it.:)



My point in posting that Dodecad analysis was to show how misleading it can be to use Admixture calculators created for modern populations to analyze ancient genomes unless you understand subsequent findings. According to that calculator, Otzi, who is definitely a product of the Balkan stream of the Neolithic, has more SSA than Gok, and the most is in European hunter-gatherers, which is the opposite of the assertions made here. I don't know how often it has to be said and demonstrated, but Admixture calculators based on modern modal clusters have to be interpreted very carefully, and with a knowledge of what more recent methods have shown, or they can be very misleading.

You also have to be careful when discussing these Neolithic samples to know whether you are talking about the Early Neolithic of Impressed Ware/Cardial-Balkan Neolithic or you are talking about the Middle Neolithic. They are different, and the differences are the result of differing amounts of local h-g ancestry, not because there were differences among the farmers who came to Europe.

If you go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and carefully re-look at all the graphics, you will see that I was discussing the initial streams of the Neolithic. Those early EEF people, whether in the Balkans, Central Europe, or Iberia, were remarkably similar to the Anatolian Neolithic people, and the Anatolian Neolithic people, who were the ones who went to Europe (actually many of them migrated from the juncture of Anatolia and northern Syria) were almost indistinguishable from one another. There was no Levant Neolithic which went to Europe versus an Anatolian Neolithic. Natufians didn't go to Europe. The major division in terms of early Near Eastern farmers was between the Anatolian Neolithic (which indeed had a chunk of Levant Neolithic in it), and the Iranian Neolithic.

If you look at the Gunther et al graphic above, in particular, you'll see what I mean.

You also might want to take a look at the latest Reich paper on the Neolithic people of the Near East.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/abs/nature19310.html

I don't know if E-V22 was specifically Cardial versus E-V13 being specifically Balkan. I would say not, as the precursor of E-V13 is found in a Cardial setting in Spain, and Cardial moved from there all the way to the Paris Basin and elsewhere. Even if that were the case I don't see how it matters, however. Some differences in y Dna are to be expected. They don't translate into autosomal differences. That's why I2a farmers and I1 farmers are identical to G2a farmers.

I'am pretty sure:
See also, Voskarides (2016) (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8/fulltext.html): “E-V22 and E-M34 are common in the Southern Levant, Sicily, Algeria, and in Egypt and rare in Europe. These lineages, like J2b-M205, could mirror a Pottery Neolithic movement to Cyprus from the Southern Levant (Pearson R 2 coefficient of correlation of E- M34 to longitude: 0.164, p = 0.003)” On of the earliest spread to the Mediterranean is the the so called Impressed (or Cordial) Ware (http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095959309) (7000-5500 ybp). The spread to the Mediterranean could be in several waves up until the so called Phoenicians (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/features/world/asia/lebanon/phoenicians-text.html)(3500-2500 ybp)."

I'am not so sure if E-V13 was found in Cardial Spain. if I'am well it could be related to E1b but are there not enough marker to classify him as E-V13. So probably an hoax. i will do research.

LeBrok
22-01-17, 21:32
As stated an example is E-V13 (LBK) vs E-V22 (Cardial). E-V22 is found on the cardial hotspots, med. island and coast, not related to Anatolian stock!All Neolithic in south and central europe is the same source, not much autosomal variations. Explosions of some haplogroups has happened once they settled in certain places, causing local variations. Also it might mean different route to the destination, gathering various h-g dna on their way. However EEF had one source.

Northener
22-01-17, 21:34
Ed. I see LeBrok and Bicicleur have beat me to it.:)



My point in posting that Dodecad analysis was to show how misleading it can be to use Admixture calculators created for modern populations to analyze ancient genomes unless you understand subsequent findings. According to that calculator, Otzi, who is definitely a product of the Balkan stream of the Neolithic, has more SSA than Gok, and the most is in European hunter-gatherers, which is the opposite of the assertions made here. I don't know how often it has to be said and demonstrated, but Admixture calculators based on modern modal clusters have to be interpreted very carefully, and with a knowledge of what more recent methods have shown, or they can be very misleading.

You also have to be careful when discussing these Neolithic samples to know whether you are talking about the Early Neolithic of Impressed Ware/Cardial-Balkan Neolithic or you are talking about the Middle Neolithic. They are different, and the differences are the result of differing amounts of local h-g ancestry, not because there were differences among the farmers who came to Europe.

If you go back and carefully re-read what I wrote and carefully re-look at all the graphics, you will see that I was discussing the initial streams of the Neolithic. Those early EEF people, whether in the Balkans, Central Europe, or Iberia, were remarkably similar to the Anatolian Neolithic people, and the Anatolian Neolithic people, who were the ones who went to Europe (actually many of them migrated from the juncture of Anatolia and northern Syria) were almost indistinguishable from one another. There was no Levant Neolithic which went to Europe versus an Anatolian Neolithic. Natufians didn't go to Europe. The major division in terms of early Near Eastern farmers was between the Anatolian Neolithic (which indeed had a chunk of Levant Neolithic in it), and the Iranian Neolithic.

If you look at the Gunther et al graphic above, in particular, you'll see what I mean.

You also might want to take a look at the latest Reich paper on the Neolithic people of the Near East.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/abs/nature19310.html

I don't know if E-V22 was specifically Cardial versus E-V13 being specifically Balkan. I would say not, as the precursor of E-V13 is found in a Cardial setting in Spain, and Cardial moved from there all the way to the Paris Basin and elsewhere. Even if E-V22 was limited to Cardial, I don't see how it matters. Some differences in y Dna are to be expected. They don't translate into autosomal differences. Autosomally, these people were all very similar. We have many, many papers, and many autosomal analyses of these people to prove it. That's why I2a farmers and I1 farmers are identical to G2a farmers.

E-V22 could also definitely have reached certain areas of Europe with later migrations, some historical. Some could have come with Phoenicians, maybe some with North Africans during the Roman Era and later. I don't see any difficulty with North African troops under the Romans spreading it to northern Europe. They were stationed in Britain and along the borders with Germania.

Are 4 DYS enough for an haplotype? The E1b found in Spain is number 6 in the appendix of Lacan (2011). Is this certainly E-V13??????

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/45/18255/T3.expansion.html


When you look at the Y-Full tree
https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/
you get another picture, Spain 7000 ybp is for E-V13 indeed to "young". E-v13 is an offspring from E-L616 in the Y-full tree only found in Latvia, definitely no relation with cardial I guess ;) On branche earlier we get E-Z1919 but at these fase we already have no differentiation with E-V22 so hmmmmm!
The Western Desert (Libya/Egypt) is most probably the source of E-M78 is not unthinkable that a person with an E-M78 variant went from North-Africa to Spain, but not exclusive related to E-V13 I guess....so hoax?

Northener
22-01-17, 21:38
..............

Angela
22-01-17, 21:40
LBK and Cardial Ware were the 1st wave of farmers into Europe
and alltough they represent 2 different cultures, the people were genetically quite similar
that is quite clear
but what subsequent waves followed is less clear
also is puzzling where the rising WHG admixture came from, is it local admixture after the 1st wave, or did this additional WHG come from elsewhere?

There's been some work indicating that Loschbour type people were absorbed in the west, and KO1 type people in Central Europe, which makes sense.

What I don't think is yet clear, if it will ever be clear, is whether the local h-g sort of stayed in place, the way that some Indians were to be found on the outskirts of forts in the American west, and were slowly absorbed over hundreds of years, or whether the local h-gs initially fled to refugia in the far northeast and the Atlantic, to slowly filter back in.

I think there may have been an initial admixture in the area of the Danube Gates. However, remember that enigmatic abstract about an upcoming paper that said some of the initial admixed? Balkan groups had no genetic impact on modern Europeans? I still want to know what that meant.

The rest may have taken place later, because most parts of LBK are almost identical to the Anatolian farmers. In Iberia there also may have been some initial admixture.

What is still surprising to me is how long it took to absorb them, and the small amount of that admixture. It's about 20%, right?

LeBrok
22-01-17, 21:40
Seems like an apology to LeBrok is in order. I was genuinely ignorant and stuck in the 'Jordan valley paradigm'.Not needed. I like exchange of ideas and good argument. ;)

Northener
22-01-17, 21:53
All Neolithic in south and central europe is the same source, not much autosomal variations. Explosions of some haplogroups has happened once they settled in certain places, causing local variations. Also it might mean different route to the destination, gathering various h-g dna on their way. However EEF had one source.


On second thought:
E-V22 is definitely Egyptian stock!
Explain your relationship with the Anatolian stock, 'the one source'.

Angela
22-01-17, 22:21
I don't think it's at all controversial to posit that E-V22 and E-M78 are sourced in North Africa, probably Egypt. The question is when and where did they move after that.

One popular theory, bolstered by how much yDna "E" has been found in Natufians, is that it moved from there to the ancient Near East and then into Europe and that E-V13 may have been born either in the Near East or Europe, although it's major expansion was in the Bronze Age, with whom is not yet clear or uncontroversial.

The European Neolithic definitely didn't come from Egypt!

Another important read is Olade et al, from which I posted a graphic.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/23/molbev.msv181.full

bicicleur
22-01-17, 22:27
There's been some work indicating that Loschbour type people were absorbed in the west, and KO1 type people in Central Europe, which makes sense.

What I don't think is yet clear, if it will ever be clear, is whether the local h-g sort of stayed in place, the way that some Indians were to be found on the outskirts of forts in the American west, and were slowly absorbed over hundreds of years, or whether the local h-gs initially fled to refugia in the far northeast and the Atlantic, to slowly filter back in.

I think there may have been an initial admixture in the area of the Danube Gates. However, remember that enigmatic abstract about an upcoming paper that said some of the initial admixed? Balkan groups had no genetic impact on modern Europeans? I still want to know what that meant.

The rest may have taken place later, because most parts of LBK are almost identical to the Anatolian farmers. In Iberia there also may have been some initial admixture.

What is still surprising to me is how long it took to absorb them, and the small amount of that admixture. It's about 20%, right?

yes the increase was gradual, it took a long time
and it was limited
exact figures depend how you define WHG
as you know, I've checked in a K=14 of a quite large population, in which there is something very similar to WHG, but not exact like the original definition when WHG was introduced (was that the Loschbourg genome?)
it is however so that there was not only WHG in western Europe, there was also some in Anatolia (some Gravettian LGM refuges) and some in eastern Europe (Swiderian and extinct Epigravettian people of which autosomal and mtDNA got mixed with the incoming EHG), so the additional WHG could have come along from anywhere, albeit not in pure form if it was not coming from western Europe

Northener
22-01-17, 22:31
And what about Trombetta (2015). He mentions E-V1083, which is M78(xV22,V12) this has only been reported in Sardinia and the Saho from East Africa!
When we consider Sardina as the stronghold of the EEF, than this is a nice finding, not Anatolian stock related....

Wiki: 'E-V1083*. Found only in Eritrea (1.1%) and Sardinia (0.3%).'

LeBrok
22-01-17, 23:00
On second thought:
E-V22 is definitely Egyptian stock!No way. We would see way more SW Asian admixture, Natufian.

Explain your relationship with the Anatolian stock, 'the one source'.
Check HarappaWorld thread, all there.

Think about Y hg as a virus. It can jump between populations without much of autosomal change.

Northener
22-01-17, 23:20
No way. We would see way more SW Asian admixture, Natufian.

Check HarappaWorld thread, all there.

Think about Y hg as a virus. It can jump between populations without much of autosomal change.

You are definitely wrong. In 2007 Prof. Cruciani stated that the origins of E-M78 lay in the Western Desert (Egypt/Libya). This is recently confirmed by prof. Trombetta e.a. (2015) they claimed: “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).

The changing weather conditions, people moving to the Nile, and starting with forms of agriculture and sedentary takes place in the Western Desert/ Nile region. Along the Nile within a relative short time, a few hundreds years, there where 7 mutations (subbranches) within the E-V22 markers (Y2530_2 and PH2818). This occurred about 7300 ybp.
The migration from the Western Desert to the Nile and the development of a new kind of life style are mayor triggers for the different mutations of E-V22 and the founder effect of it.
Afterwards it spread to SW Asia.

I don't state that E-V22 is on the whole an major lineage. But it's a lineage which forms a part of the cordial, Neolithic expansion, which hasn't it's roots in Anatolia. It's a part of Maciamo.s "Levantine branch".


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Northener
22-01-17, 23:40
I don't think it's at all controversial to posit that E-V22 and E-M78 are sourced in North Africa, probably Egypt. The question is when and where did they move after that.

One popular theory, bolstered by how much yDna "E" has been found in Natufians, is that it moved from there to the ancient Near East and then into Europe and that E-V13 may have been born either in the Near East or Europe, although it's major expansion was in the Bronze Age, with whom is not yet clear or uncontroversial.

The European Neolithic definitely didn't come from Egypt!

Another important read is Olade et al, from which I posted a graphic.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/09/23/molbev.msv181.full

The only things I state are:
1. Maciamo has a point when he detects a Levantine branch in the development in the Mediterranean and beyond: in Western Europe.
2. E-V22 is on the whole a tiny lineage, TMCRA 8100 ybp at the Nile, so time enough to move into the Levant, and therefore able to play a part in the cardial development rooted in the Levantine, it's not related to Anatolia (just below it).
Nothing more nothing less.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Angela
23-01-17, 00:30
yes the increase was gradual, it took a long time
and it was limited
exact figures depend how you define WHG
as you know, I've checked in a K=14 of a quite large population, in which there is something very similar to WHG, but not exact like the original definition when WHG was introduced (was that the Loschbourg genome?)
it is however so that there was not only WHG in western Europe, there was also some in Anatolia (some Gravettian LGM refuges) and some in eastern Europe (Swiderian and extinct Epigravettian people of which autosomal and mtDNA got mixed with the incoming EHG), so the additional WHG could have come along from anywhere, albeit not in pure form if it was not coming from western Europe

Yes, I know. I'm only speaking of the WHG like ancestry picked up once they were in Europe, which is the topic of interest of the academic papers.

LeBrok
23-01-17, 01:02
You are definitely wrong. In 2007 Prof. Cruciani stated that the origins of E-M78 lay in the Western Desert (Egypt/Libya). This is recently confirmed by prof. Trombetta e.a. (2015) they claimed: “a northern African location is favoured for the node defining the M78 sub-clade (posterior probability = 0.76), supporting the previous hypothesis of Cruciani et al. (2007).

The changing weather conditions, people moving to the Nile, and starting with forms of agriculture and sedentary takes place in the Western Desert/ Nile region. Along the Nile within a relative short time, a few hundreds years, there where 7 mutations (subbranches) within the E-V22 markers (Y2530_2 and PH2818). This occurred about 7300 ybp.
The migration from the Western Desert to the Nile and the development of a new kind of life style are mayor triggers for the different mutations of E-V22 and the founder effect of it.
Afterwards it spread to SW Asia.

I don't state that E-V22 is on the whole an major lineage. But it's a lineage which forms a part of the cordial, Neolithic expansion, which hasn't it's roots in Anatolia. It's a part of Maciamo.s "Levantine branch".


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)Imagine that one E-V22 sailer/trader from Egypt came to Italy fell in love and had lots of sons. His impact on autosomal pool on a region was negligible and undetectable (same effect even if it wasn't one sailor but a whole boat of sailors), his E-V22 however had spread through the region and lives till today.
Win-win for both of us?

Angela
23-01-17, 01:13
It has already been stated in this thread (and by me) that E-M78 and V22 have been sourced by some scholars to North Africa. How many times does it have to be repeated? The question is, what happened after that? When and how did it arrive in Europe?

It is perfectly plausible that along with all the other E that wound up in the Near East (in Natufians, for example), some became part of the Anatolian Neolithic which then moved into Europe. Pre-E-V13 could then have wound up both in Cardial in Spain and eventually in Sopot/Lengyel north of the Balkans. There, E-M78 could have eventually mutated into E-V13.

I still have unanswered questions about the sub-clades of E-V13. Is the pre-E-V13 in Cardial from the same branch as the one that led to the pre-E-V13 in Sopot/Lengyel in the mid-to-late Neolithic transition along with J2? Was the Sopot/Lengyel branch from a later wave of the Neolithic? We know that with time there was a movement of Iran Neolithic west and south, and also a movement from the south that went north and east. Could E-V13 and V22 have been parts of that movement, a movement that continued into Europe? Also, why and how did E-V13 suddenly explode in the Bronze Age, and where? Was it indeed picked up by steppe people? If so, where? We need more ancient dna and more analysis to get to the bottom of these things, imo.

There is still also a chance that E-M78 and V22 went directly to Europe from North Africa before the Neolithic but that is a long shot now, imo.

What is clear to me, however, is that Cardial could never be supposed to have picked up E-V13 or V22 in Egypt/Libya. That just isn't the route that Cardial took. Cardial hugged the North Mediterranean coastline. They didn't have the navigation skills to do anything else.

Furthermore, regardless of how people want to characterize Cardial, and whether or not Cardial people carried V22, it doesn't change the fact that all the EEF samples from Europe we have are very similar to one another and very similar to the Anatolian farmers who left for Europe. Ydna is a very small percentage of someone's genetic make-up. As I pointed out above, we have a I1 European farmer who is indistinguishable autosomally from G2a2 farmers, and I2a2 farmers carrying ydna of the European h-gs, who show little to minimum h-g ancestry autosomally. It's just the way it is.

People can believe what they wish, of course.

Btw, there are no hoaxes being perpetrated about E-V13 in Europe, or what is technically pre-E-V13. Why on earth would there be? You think all these scientists and researchers of all sorts from all different countries personally care one way or another? What difference can it possibly make?

Ed. This is, of course, the state of the data as of the present time. Should ancient dna turn up from southern Europe that shows that some Cardial people were substantially different from the rest of the EEF, then that would change everything. As of now, to the best of my knowledge the Cardial derived Neolithic samples from Iberia fit the general pattern.

Milan.M
23-01-17, 01:30
2. E-V22 is on the whole a tiny lineage, TMCRA 8100 ybp at the Nile, so time enough to move into the Levant, and therefore able to play a part in the cardial development rooted in the Levantine, it's not related to Anatolia (just below it).
Nothing more nothing less.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)
All this sound good and i can agree with it if we find genetic trace of it.

Angela
23-01-17, 01:46
This is, of course, the state of the data as of the present time. Should ancient dna turn up from southern Europe that shows that some Cardial people were substantially different from the rest of the EEF, then that would change everything. As of now, to the best of my knowledge the Cardial derived Neolithic samples from Iberia fit the general pattern, whatever their yDna.

I'll add this as an ed. to the post above.

Fire Haired14
23-01-17, 04:40
@Angela,

A Cardiel guy had E-V13 not pre-E-V13. Also the Neolithic Hungarians with E1b-M78 weren't tested for V13.

Sile
23-01-17, 06:45
The only things I state are:
1. Maciamo has a point when he detects a Levantine branch in the development in the Mediterranean and beyond: in Western Europe.
2. E-V22 is on the whole a tiny lineage, TMCRA 8100 ybp at the Nile, so time enough to move into the Levant, and therefore able to play a part in the cardial development rooted in the Levantine, it's not related to Anatolia (just below it).
Nothing more nothing less.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

but was that branch before farming commenced?

clearly we already know hunters passed back and forward in the levant prior ( thousands of years before ) to any becoming farmers

Northener
23-01-17, 10:41
@Angela,

A Cardiel guy had E-V13 not pre-E-V13. Also the Neolithic Hungarians with E1b-M78 weren't tested for V13.

What's the source Fire Haided?

I can only find Lacan e.a. 2011 as source.

In the text there is stated:
For the six male samples, two complete and four partial Y-STRs haplotypes were obtained (Table 3). They allowed classification of individuals into two different haplogroups: G2a (individuals ave01, ave02, ave03, ave05, and ave06, which seem to share the same haplotype) and E1b1b1 (individual ave07). The four markers chosen to confirm belonging to these haplogroups (Y-E1b1b1-M35.1, Y-E1b1b1a1b-V13, Y-G2-M287, and Y-G2a-P15) were typed with a rate of 66%, which permitted confirmation that four males were G2a and one was E1b1b1a1b (Table 3).

When you look at the table. There are for the 'E-v13 person' only 4 markers. Problem 1. how can they be sure, with a 4 marker, that's E-v13?

Problem 2. In the Yfull tree the TMRCA of E-V13 is 5400 ybp. Ok this is a model, with ranges. But 7000 ybp cardial Spain? To early....

So I'am curios if there are other sources!

Northener
23-01-17, 10:57
It has already been stated in this thread (and by me) that E-M78 and V22 have been sourced by some scholars to North Africa. How many times does it have to be repeated? The question is, what happened after that? When and how did it arrive in Europe?

It is perfectly plausible that along with all the other E that wound up in the Near East (in Natufians, for example), some became part of the Anatolian Neolithic which then moved into Europe. Pre-E-V13 could then have wound up both in Cardial in Spain and eventually in Sopot/Lengyel north of the Balkans. There, E-M78 could have eventually mutated into E-V13.

I still have unanswered questions about the sub-clades of E-V13. Is the pre-E-V13 in Cardial from the same branch as the one that led to the pre-E-V13 in Sopot/Lengyel in the mid-to-late Neolithic transition along with J2? Was the Sopot/Lengyel branch from a later wave of the Neolithic? We know that with time there was a movement of Iran Neolithic west and south, and also a movement from the south that went north and east. Could E-V13 and V22 have been parts of that movement, a movement that continued into Europe? Also, why and how did E-V13 suddenly explode in the Bronze Age, and where? Was it indeed picked up by steppe people? If so, where? We need more ancient dna and more analysis to get to the bottom of these things, imo.

There is still also a chance that E-M78 and V22 went directly to Europe from North Africa before the Neolithic but that is a long shot now, imo.

What is clear to me, however, is that Cardial could never be supposed to have picked up E-V13 or V22 in Egypt/Libya. That just isn't the route that Cardial took. Cardial hugged the North Mediterranean coastline. They didn't have the navigation skills to do anything else.

Furthermore, regardless of how people want to characterize Cardial, and whether or not Cardial people carried V22, it doesn't change the fact that all the EEF samples from Europe we have are very similar to one another and very similar to the Anatolian farmers who left for Europe. Ydna is a very small percentage of someone's genetic make-up. As I pointed out above, we have a I1 European farmer who is indistinguishable autosomally from G2a2 farmers, and I2a2 farmers carrying ydna of the European h-gs, who show little to minimum h-g ancestry autosomally. It's just the way it is.

People can believe what they wish, of course.

Btw, there are no hoaxes being perpetrated about E-V13 in Europe, or what is technically pre-E-V13. Why on earth would there be? You think all these scientists and researchers of all sorts from all different countries personally care one way or another? What difference can it possibly make?

Ed. This is, of course, the state of the data as of the present time. Should ancient dna turn up from southern Europe that shows that some Cardial people were substantially different from the rest of the EEF, then that would change everything. As of now, to the best of my knowledge the Cardial derived Neolithic samples from Iberia fit the general pattern.

On E-V13 see my reaction on Fire Haided.
The question is, as orignally stated by Maciamo, is there a possibillity that E-V22 is part of a cardial movement rooted in the Southern Levant and wo went at the end into West-Europa?
I say: it could be.
Because:
1. The TMRCA or E-V22 is about 8000 ybp. Most probably in the Nile area. The Southern Levant is one of worlds oldest human hubs. From NE Africa to SW Asia/Middle East and vice versa. The TMRCA of E-V22 is old enough to mingle with neolithic Levant. And the cordial spread is from the Levant into Med.
2. Look at my subclade: Spain, Wales and North Dutch. Ok later influences are even more likely, Roman or in my case Spanish Army. But this doesn't rule out Maciamo's route!

Northener
23-01-17, 11:00
but was that branch before farming commenced?

clearly we already know hunters passed back and forward in the levant prior ( thousands of years before ) to any becoming farmers

Yes cleary. The founder effect of E-V22 is at the time of desertification, and people becoming sedentary along the Nile, also with the dawn of neolitization of Egypt along the Nile.

bicicleur
23-01-17, 11:21
What's the source Fire Haided?

I can only find Lacan e.a. 2011 as source.

In the text there is stated:
For the six male samples, two complete and four partial Y-STRs haplotypes were obtained (Table 3). They allowed classification of individuals into two different haplogroups: G2a (individuals ave01, ave02, ave03, ave05, and ave06, which seem to share the same haplotype) and E1b1b1 (individual ave07). The four markers chosen to confirm belonging to these haplogroups (Y-E1b1b1-M35.1, Y-E1b1b1a1b-V13, Y-G2-M287, and Y-G2a-P15) were typed with a rate of 66%, which permitted confirmation that four males were G2a and one was E1b1b1a1b (Table 3).

When you look at the table. There are for the 'E-v13 person' only 4 markers. Problem 1. how can they be sure, with a 4 marker, that's E-v13?

Problem 2. In the Yfull tree the TMRCA of E-V13 is 5400 ybp. Ok this is a model, with ranges. But 7000 ybp cardial Spain? To early....

So I'am curios if there are other sources!

he is more likely pré-L618, and even that is not sure

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/

Northener
23-01-17, 11:27
he is more likely pré-L618, and even that is not sure

https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/

Exact bicicleur!
Or even: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/

I don't know which one correpondences with the Trombetta E-V1083, only found in Eritrea and Sardinia.....

rafc
23-01-17, 15:27
The cardial V13 doesn't fit well in our current understanding of this group. But the facts are the facts: this sample was tested for the V13 SNP and was positive, so the STR-values are of no importance.

kingjohn
23-01-17, 15:37
That is what I've been told about my haplogroup E-M123* that it came from the Levant trough the med. road to Northwestern Iberia where its still present there. Seems plausible explanation that this movemnt of people was connected to this culture.


your haplogroup:e-m123*
without the m34 mutation could be old in europe{ portugal }possible from neolithic period.
best regards
adam

Northener
23-01-17, 16:02
The cardial V13 doesn't fit well in our current understanding of this group. But the facts are the facts: this sample was tested for the V13 SNP and was positive, so the STR-values are of no importance.

Could you please explain a little bit more. "doesn't fit well in our curent understandfing"? Why is E-V13 on Y-full so much 'younger'? Do you have a link or article?

Northener
23-01-17, 16:10
Imagine that one E-V22 sailer/trader from Egypt came to Italy fell in love and had lots of sons. His impact on autosomal pool on a region was negligible and undetectable (same effect even if it wasn't one sailor but a whole boat of sailors), his E-V22 however had spread through the region and lives till today.
Win-win for both of us?

I love the sailor romantic LeBrok!
my forefathers were indeed sailorman ;)

http://www.skutsje-eenvoud.nl/img/home/slideshow/1.jpg

(the impact on Asturias, Andalusia, Sicily and Napoli was and is bigger; about 4 a 5% is E-V22)

Angela
23-01-17, 16:34
@Angela,

A Cardiel guy had E-V13 not pre-E-V13. Also the Neolithic Hungarians with E1b-M78 weren't tested for V13.

Fire-Haired, where did you find that it's E-V13? Is it Genetiker? I know he's usually pretty good, but it's not the same as an academician finding that.

@Northener,

If you want to call the area at the juncture of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria "the Levant" that's your prerogative, but that's not the common understanding.

If you find data showing that Cardial farmers were any different than Balkan farmers I'd be very interested to see it.

Northener
23-01-17, 16:57
Fire-Haired, where did you find that it's E-V13? Is it Genetiker? I know he's usually pretty good, but it's not the same as an academician finding that.

@Northener,

If you want to call the area at the juncture of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria "the Levant" that's your prerogative, but that's not the common understanding.

If you find data showing that Cardial farmers were any different than Balkan farmers I'd be very interested to see it.

In my opinion, I guess very regular in Europe is this the Levant :http://muslimpolitic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3.jpg

In gemanic speaking countries often called Morgenland.

My focus is on the E-V22 route. So this data about the differences could be bycatch. As said zooming out is: E-V13 LBK and E-V22 cardial.

Megalophias
23-01-17, 17:21
When you look at the table. There are for the 'E-v13 person' only 4 markers. Problem 1. how can they be sure, with a 4 marker, that's E-v13?
The same Table 3 lists SNP values, which for Ave07 are derived for M35 and V13.


Problem 2. In the Yfull tree the TMRCA of E-V13 is 5400 ybp. Ok this is a model, with ranges. But 7000 ybp cardial Spain? To early....
Having the V13 SNP in itself does not mean it has all the equivalent SNPs leading to the modern V13 clade. It might be (probably is) an older branch now very rare or extinct.

Angela
23-01-17, 17:42
In my opinion, I guess very regular in Europe is this the Levant :http://muslimpolitic.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/3.jpg

In gemanic speaking countries often called Morgenland.

My focus is on the E-V22 route. So this data about the differences could be bycatch. As said zooming out is: E-V13 LBK and E-V22 cardial.

OK, this is my last attempt. I have seen nothing to indicate that there was any movement into Europe of early farmers from south of the very northern tip of Syria. Said another way, people from the Levant Neolithic did not migrate into Europe. It was people described as Anatolian Neolithic, although the area technically includes a small part of northern Syria. Should new data come out showing that isn't the case, of course my conclusions would change.

As for E-V13 being limited to LBK, the Cardial sample indicates it might not be that simple.

Northener
23-01-17, 17:56
OK, this is my last attempt. I have seen nothing to indicate that there was any movement into Europe of early farmers from south of the very northern tip of Syria. Said another way, people from the Levant Neolithic did not migrate into Europe. It was people described as Anatolian Neolithic, although the area technically includes a small part of northern Syria. Should new data come out showing that isn't the case, of course my conclusions would change.

As for E-V13 being limited to LBK, the Cardial sample indicates it might not be that simple.

I consider these kind of activities like reconstructions of streams in a jacuzzi. Especially in a crowded house like the Mediterranean.
That's why I used the word zoom out to indicate that E-V13 is basically LBK doesn't rule out exceptions of course. It's not mathematics but human migration.....

And also I think that are quite more exceptions to your statement that Levantine Neolithic didn't migrate into Europe. See for example:
https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Northener
23-01-17, 18:14
thanks!! does this rule out the "forefather'of E- V13 (in the modern tree), like: https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-L618/

Angela
23-01-17, 19:22
I meant to post this upthread. It's a good graphic to keep in one's files for handy reference. It's from the latest Lazaridis paper. I haven't rechecked, but I think this, like much of the work, is based on d-stats.

From: The Genetic Structure of the World's First Farmers
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PTL6wXoyuKw/V271sJNQ7cI/AAAAAAAADXI/v0yWQWK50ZgU19lYYWqM3Ec9Bdp--63MgCLcB/s1600/ADMIXTURE.png
This will make you go blind, but it's also very informative...

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

If clicking on it doesn't make it large enough, this is the direct link:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg


@Northener,
We're talking genetics, not some spot on a map. As I've said ad nauseam the farmers who went to Europe are a "genetic entity" known as the "Anatolia Neolithic" people. When the computational population geneticists dig deeper, "Anatolia Neolithic" is composed of three strands: a WHG "like" strand, something "like" a Levant Neolithic strand, and an Iran Neolithic strand.

This is what Bicicleur was talking about upthread when he said there was a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic, bringing together, perhaps, grain and pulse agriculture and animal domestication, which went to Europe as a package.

However, the genetic entity known as "Levant Neolithic" did not on its own go to Europe." It only went by incorporation into what is known as "Anatolia Neolithic". So far, all of the EEF or Early Neolithic farmers in Europe, even the Cardial derived ones in Spain etc. are part of the same genetic entity.

When you've read all of the relevant papers carefully, you'll see what we're talking about.

Northener
23-01-17, 20:37
I meant to post this upthread. It's a good graphic to keep in one's files for handy reference. It's from the latest Lazaridis paper. I haven't rechecked, but I think this, like much of the work, is based on d-stats.

From: The Genetic Structure of the World's First Farmers
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PTL6wXoyuKw/V271sJNQ7cI/AAAAAAAADXI/v0yWQWK50ZgU19lYYWqM3Ec9Bdp--63MgCLcB/s1600/ADMIXTURE.png
This will make you go blind, but it's also very informative...

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

If clicking on it doesn't make it large enough, this is the direct link:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg


@Northener,
We're talking genetics, not some spot on a map. As I've said ad nauseam the farmers who went to Europe are a "genetic entity" known as the "Anatolia Neolithic" people. When the computational population geneticists dig deeper, "Anatolia Neolithic" is composed of three strands: a WHG "like" strand, something "like" a Levant Neolithic strand, and an Iran Neolithic strand.

This is what Bicicleur was talking about upthread when he said there was a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic, bringing together, perhaps, grain and pulse agriculture and animal domestication, which went to Europe as a package.

However, the genetic entity known as "Levant Neolithic" did not on its own go to Europe." It only went by incorporation into what is known as "Anatolia Neolithic". So far, all of the EEF or Early Neolithic farmers in Europe, even the Cardial derived ones in Spain etc. are part of the same genetic entity.

When you've read all of the relevant papers carefully, you'll see what we're talking about.

Part of your reactions are tautologies to me. When E-V22 was part of the "Anatolia neolithic" ok fine be my guest. But that doen't make it an Anatolian haplotype in geographic sense.

And is the "genetic entity" so absolute? Without any doubt?

There is even some research which state that there were direct relationship between 'neolithic' Egypt and Spain. Take for example this genetic research:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510567
Quote: " In addition, pre-dynastic Egyptian El-Badari culture (4,500 years ago) is similar to southern Iberian Neolithic settlements with regard to pottery and animal domestication."

Another one about the influence of the Levantine culture:
"The archaeological parallels found between the pre-pottery Neolithic of the Levant and those of Cyprus and the Aegean islands in terms of radiocarbon dating, settlement architecture, material culture, cereal and domestic animal species provide evidence for a sea-mediated arrival of Levantine people to Cyprus soon after the development of the agriculture, during the late PPNA or early PPNB, and a further expansion towards the Aegean."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046922/

Some archeologist state the close relationship between North-Africa and Spain.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=MJWcSRSz9wEC&pg=PA149&dq=neolithic+levant++iberia&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiRnIjv6tjRAhVBSRoKHTbKBY0Q6AEIOTAB#v=on epage&q=neolithic%20levant%20%20iberia&f=false

All from a short survey. I don't claim this is all accurat. But it's shows to me that there more options. Not just single or one track minded options.

Angela
23-01-17, 22:10
Every discipline has its terminology, including population genetics. If you don't want to learn this terminology, what it means, and the genetics it illuminates, then don't.

A paper from 1999 has no probative value with regard to the genetics of the Early Neolithic farmers of the Near East because we didn't have that ancient dna then. Even two years ago, which is the date of the other paper, we didn't have these genomes. The paper on them is dated to the middle of 2016. Nor did we have the latest archaeological dating and testing of these Neolithic sites.

All I have been attempting to do is to provide you with the most recent data and papers on the subject, papers, by the way, from the premier genetics labs in the world. Maybe it will change tomorrow, and we'll find that some Cardial people came from somewhere deep in the Levant, and were different from the Balkan Neolithic people who took a more northern route, but so far this is what the data shows, because the Cardial descended Iberian Neolithic people don't show that. This is information which many of us already know because we've read and studied the papers. If you don't want to read them, fine, don't.

As for V22, maybe it hitched a ride with the Cardial folks but not with the folks who ended up in the Balkans. Maybe some of it came earlier, pre-Neolithic. Maybe some of it came with historical migrations. It's immaterial to me. None of that changes any of the above. Uni-parental markers don't necessarily indicate autosomal make-up.

Northener
23-01-17, 23:16
Every discipline has its terminology, including population genetics. If you don't want to learn this terminology, what it means, and the genetics it illuminates, then don't.

A paper from 1999 has no probative value with regard to the genetics of the Early Neolithic farmers of the Near East because we didn't have that ancient dna then. Even two years ago, which is the date of the other paper, we didn't have these genomes. The paper on them is dated to the middle of 2016. Nor did we have the latest archaeological dating and testing of these Neolithic sites.

All I have been attempting to do is to provide you with the most recent data and papers on the subject, papers, by the way, from the premier genetics labs in the world. Maybe it will change tomorrow, and we'll find that some Cardial people came from somewhere deep in the Levant, and were different from the Balkan Neolithic people who took a more northern route, but so far this is what the data shows, because the Cardial descended Iberian Neolithic people don't show that. This is information which many of us already know because we've read and studied the papers. If you don't want to read them, fine, don't.

As for V22, maybe it hitched a ride with the Cardial folks but not with the folks who ended up in the Balkans. Maybe some of it came earlier, pre-Neolithic. Maybe some of it came with historical migrations. It's immaterial to me. None of that changes any of the above. Uni-parental markers don't necessarily indicate autosomal make-up.

Of course I want to read it. I just scanned it. And I will read it too.
I'am not in into some kind of terminology. I guess that's typical for an historian. Sometimes more an art than science ;)
And I'am convinced that whatever models we create even by the biggest big data we aren't able to reconstruct the past, including the migrational past, completely. It escapes the models, including the 'genetic models'. Nevertheless it's the best we can do. But it will be a discussion and revision without an end.....
But for now I agree with: 'As for V22, maybe it hitched a ride with the Cardial folks but not with the folks who ended up in the Balkans. Maybe some of it came earlier, pre-Neolithic. Maybe some of it came with historical migrations.':smile:

bicicleur
24-01-17, 13:01
this may be relevant to the topic of megalithism in western Europe



Before the Pyramids...



Neolithic peoples in France constructed huge tombs that are today only visible from the air.

http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/neolithic/


The Cerny culture occupies mostly the Yonne and Seine river basins and developed between 4500 and 4000 B.C. European regionalization began at Cerny, with groups settling in small areas and beginning to develop unique life-styles. While we are very familiar with Cerny ceramics (exemplified by the sherds Bailloud examined), their economy (a mixture of farming and hunting), and some of their necropolises. Their settlements pose a problem for archaeologists. While the houses of their predecessors are easy to find, those belonging to Cerny are still difficult to discern.
The Cerny people represent a great stride in European history. In the sixth millennium B.C., the first Danubians had introduced agriculture, but they settled only on light soils in valley bottoms, their tools and agricultural technique not permitting them to cultivate heavier soils at higher elevations. In the next millennium the Cerny people began the conquest of the plateaus. It is hypothesized that they used plows drawn by oxen and perhaps horses, which had served until then only for food, vastly increasing the cultivable surface of the land to feed a rising population. The Cerny people were the first in Europe to grow wheat as their principal cereal. Raw materials such as flint were systematically exploited, and mining started to appear. Perhaps most impressive was their construction of the monumental necropolises represented by the trenches we see today, the first of their kind in the world.

Since very little remains of these monuments, we must try to imagine them at the time of their splendor. One of the most spectacular is located at the Passy site and has been carbon-dated to between 4463 and 4279 B.C. One of the longest of the necropolises is monument 5, which consists of two parallel ditches 21 feet apart, increasing to 48 feet in the east, each more than 850 feet long. At one end the ditches terminate in a circular area some 150 feet in diameter. These ditches contained palisades, wooden fences marking the necropolises. We think they were constructed in one of three ways: The ditches' earth was heaped between them to form a long barrow, higher at the eastern end; the ditches served as the foundation of a palisade, or wooden fence surrounding the barrow, or some mixture of these two techniques, with palisades sustaining the earth to create a terraced architecture. That they were built in wood and earth implies considerable effort. Numerous large trees had to be cut down with burnished adzes, then stripped of their branches and transported. The volume of moved earth was tremendous considering that the Cerny people had no knowledge of metals and had to use the backs of animals or wooden buckets.

http://archive.archaeology.org/image.php?page=online/features/neolithic/jpegs/neolithic1.jpeg

the author supposes an autochtone development, but I doubt that
it may be an incoming elite ruling over the autochtones
oxens and megalithism spread further than just this part of France

I think the 2nd wave of farming into Europe followed very soon after the 1st, only a few centuries later
Vinca culture started already 7.7 ka, and there are a few cultures in the Balkans of which very little is known

The Dudeşti culture is a farming/herding culture that occupied part of Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania) in the 6th millennium BC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6th_millennium_BC), typified by semi-subterranean habitations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit-house) (Zemlyanki) on the edges of low plateaus. This culture contributed to the origin of both the subsequent Hamangia culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamangia_culture) and the Boian culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boian_culture). It was named after Dudeşti (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C8%99ti,_Bucharest), a quarter in the southeast of Bucharest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dude%C8%99ti_culture

the 2nd wave of farming into Europe may have been forced out of the Middle East because of the 8.2 ka climate event which also triggered herders and farmers migrations into Africa, NW Iran, Central Asia and Armenia

berun
24-01-17, 15:21
8408

kurgans in central France by 4500 BC?

yes, the Yamnayans had very good wooden time-travel-machines, quite clear case...

bicicleur
24-01-17, 16:28
8408

kurgans in central France by 4500 BC?

yes, the Yamnayans had very good wooden time-travel-machines, quite clear case...

who's talking about Kurgans?
while you're at it, maybe you should atribute Stone Henge, Göbekli Tepe and the piramids to Yamnayans as well

MOESAN
24-01-17, 17:46
I'm not sure it could help too much here because the thesis in play concerns old periods of Neolithic, but on "For What They Were We Are" blog there are some interestings complies of results on ancient mt-DNA in Iberia since January 2017 and it spans a long bit of time - I copied them - ...

halfalp
24-01-17, 20:24
Amazing interaction sphere diagram.

berun
25-01-17, 11:51
who's talking about Kurgans?
while you're at it, maybe you should atribute Stone Henge, Göbekli Tepe and the piramids to Yamnayans as well

No, nobody mentioned kurgans, it only was fine irony...

halfalp
26-01-17, 21:37
I meant to post this upthread. It's a good graphic to keep in one's files for handy reference. It's from the latest Lazaridis paper. I haven't rechecked, but I think this, like much of the work, is based on d-stats.

From: The Genetic Structure of the World's First Farmers
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PTL6wXoyuKw/V271sJNQ7cI/AAAAAAAADXI/v0yWQWK50ZgU19lYYWqM3Ec9Bdp--63MgCLcB/s1600/ADMIXTURE.png
This will make you go blind, but it's also very informative...

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

If clicking on it doesn't make it large enough, this is the direct link:
http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg


@Northener,
We're talking genetics, not some spot on a map. As I've said ad nauseam the farmers who went to Europe are a "genetic entity" known as the "Anatolia Neolithic" people. When the computational population geneticists dig deeper, "Anatolia Neolithic" is composed of three strands: a WHG "like" strand, something "like" a Levant Neolithic strand, and an Iran Neolithic strand.

This is what Bicicleur was talking about upthread when he said there was a mixture of Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic, bringing together, perhaps, grain and pulse agriculture and animal domestication, which went to Europe as a package.

However, the genetic entity known as "Levant Neolithic" did not on its own go to Europe." It only went by incorporation into what is known as "Anatolia Neolithic". So far, all of the EEF or Early Neolithic farmers in Europe, even the Cardial derived ones in Spain etc. are part of the same genetic entity.

When you've read all of the relevant papers carefully, you'll see what we're talking about.


But, if i understand the graphic corectly it does not mean that Hotu_Iran or CHG had contributed to EHG, but EHG that had contributed of both, or do i understand badly the graphic ?

Angela
26-01-17, 23:36
But, if i understand the graphic corectly it does not mean that Hotu_Iran or CHG had contributed to EHG, but EHG that had contributed of both, or do i understand badly the graphic ?

Yes, but Steppe is 43% something like Iran Chalcolithic, which is made up of majority CHG.

Now, when all those Caucasus area ancient samples are published, there may be changes, but I think the general parameters will stay the same, not least because they've had the samples all along. It's all the same lab.

halfalp
27-01-17, 00:10
Yes, but if Iran_Chl through CHG is something EHG, so forcely EHG gonna be something Iran_Chl no ? But anyway Caucasus area Trans and Cis between ever have play a great role, like women throught admixtures.

Angela
27-01-17, 00:34
Yes, but if Iran_Chl through CHG is something EHG, so forcely EHG gonna be something Iran_Chl no ? But anyway Caucasus area Trans and Cis between ever have play a great role, like women throught admixtures.

If what you mean is that neighbors exchange genes back and forth across political and even natural boundaries, I completely agree.

The hypothesis that the Caucasus was some kind of impervious border to gene flow is dead in the water. I'm sure some groups went through it, and others just skirted it.

halfalp
27-01-17, 01:28
I want to say, that in human history, things like racism or xenophobia is clearly going with some kind of civilization, before, in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic, people always interchange, without real racial or cultural appreciation but it was in a female way ( a female going in another tribe, not a man going in another tribe, in majority ) without some kind of patriarcal issue or something, else. So if we really want to understand population movements through history, focus on mtdna haplogroups, seems more important for understand admixtures in population to me ( but it dont have to be a generic rule ). But other than that what i would to ask is, if by the graphic we see that EHG contributed to CHG and Iran_Hotu Cave, if steppe contains something like Iran_Chl wich itself contain EHG contribution, how do we know wich direction the primordial contribution by those really comes ? Or do we take for postulat that A give to B, B become C and C gonna give to D wich is A becoming D ? ( I dont know if my explication is understandable ).

Angela
27-01-17, 03:09
^^
This is all based on mathematical programs, statistical algorithms, many of them actually created at some of these big labs. The Reich Lab at Harvard has produced some, some were produced by other labs. I get some feeds from an online pre-print service, and more are coming out every day. It's going to shortly go beyond my time or capacity to read or digest them. This is a whole new branch of genetics called computational population genetics.

In terms of gene flow, this is all based on ancient genomes, not modern populations. In terms of gene flow, the statisticians who created that diagram used the methods they thought most reliable, and looked at each stage chronologically. They show the genes flowing only in one direction in some cases, and sometimes in both directions. Look, for example, at Levant Neolithic and Anatolia Neolithic: there is movement in both directions. Also look at EHG and WHG: again, movement in both directions. (Sometimes it's a very similar exchange and sometimes it's unbalanced.) In terms of CHG, these researchers didn't find any CHG in EHG. As for CHG, they have 71% Iran Neolithic, 7% WHG, and 21% EHG. Now, maybe those will change slightly, but the parameters are probably about right.

Now, some "modelers" in the online community, using other methods, claim there might be some CHG in EHG. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. No disrespect to these people, but my instinct is to wait for the papers from the major labs to see if there are changes. Different programs are sensitive to different inputs.

As to the specific graph we're discussing, it comes from this paper:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

In it they outline all the different analyses they performed. You might find the graphs starting on page 27 interesting.

More in depth discussion of some of the modeling they did, along with the algorithms, can be found in the Supplement:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/extref/nature19310-s4.pdf

The FST chart, if you want to see how close certain populations are to other populations using that specific method, is Supplementary table 3.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19310.html#supplementary-information

MarkoZ
27-01-17, 12:17
Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):


http://i.imgur.com/7s1h2yi.png

berun
27-01-17, 13:08
Now, some "modelers" in the online community, using other methods, claim there might be some CHG in EHG. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. No disrespect to these people, but my instinct is to wait for the papers from the major labs to see if there are changes. Different programs are sensitive to different inputs.

Programs and labs must take into account archaeology: the Caucasus was a climatic refuge and a bridge in the Neolithic expansion. What archaeological proofs we have for EHG going south?

bicicleur
27-01-17, 14:09
I want to say, that in human history, things like racism or xenophobia is clearly going with some kind of civilization, before, in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic, people always interchange, without real racial or cultural appreciation but it was in a female way ( a female going in another tribe, not a man going in another tribe, in majority ) without some kind of patriarcal issue or something, else. So if we really want to understand population movements through history, focus on mtdna haplogroups, seems more important for understand admixtures in population to me ( but it dont have to be a generic rule ). But other than that what i would to ask is, if by the graphic we see that EHG contributed to CHG and Iran_Hotu Cave, if steppe contains something like Iran_Chl wich itself contain EHG contribution, how do we know wich direction the primordial contribution by those really comes ? Or do we take for postulat that A give to B, B become C and C gonna give to D wich is A becoming D ? ( I dont know if my explication is understandable ).

if you'd say we let only immigrants in with big boobs, wouldn't that be racist or xenophobe ?
maybe that was the mechanism at work in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic

bicicleur
27-01-17, 14:22
EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 36]
M
5557–4792 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 45]
M
5471–5223 BC




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 64]
M
5479–5064 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)







Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015




the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/

halfalp
27-01-17, 16:30
if you'd say we let only immigrants in with big boobs, wouldn't that be racist or xenophobe ?
maybe that was the mechanism at work in paleolithic, mesolithic and even neolithic

I'm pretty sur that hunter-gatherers, at least apart of individual physical attirance for big boobs, never raisonning like that ! But who knows.

halfalp
27-01-17, 16:31
EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 36]
M
5557–4792 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 45]
M
5471–5223 BC




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 64]
M
5479–5064 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)







Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015




the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/


This is also the hypothesis that i have in mind for now.

halfalp
27-01-17, 16:35
Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):


http://i.imgur.com/7s1h2yi.png


Could it be linked by far-east pottery coming in central asia, and raising in Iranian Plateau with genetic ( demic diffusion ) but not in Eastern Europe, because Central Asia and Eastern Europe, were related people and transmited pottery with culture ( cultural diffusion ) ?

Angela
27-01-17, 22:08
EHG is asociated with R1
it looks like EHG came from further east, maybe the Pamir mountains and they migrated in 2 groups some 12 ka
1/ north of the Caspian Sea into Europe, which admixed with upto 20 % WHG
2/ south of the Caspian Sea into where they admixed with upto 25 % CHG ; the most prominent clade here would be R1b-V88
some of group 2/ crossed the Caucasus some 7,5 ka and later ; these brought CHG and mtDNA H with them into Khvalynsk and Dnjepr-Donets culture



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 36]
M
5557–4792 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 45]
M
5471–5223 BC




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 64]
M
5479–5064 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)







Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015




the Yamna people would then be an admixture of group 1/ with group 2/

the Corde Ware and the Potapovka / Sintashta people are group 1/

So, in your hypothesis how did Steppe EMBA become 43% something like Iran Chalcolithic?

bicicleur
28-01-17, 00:07
So, in your hypothesis how did Steppe EMBA become 43% something like Iran Chalcolithic?

different ancestral reference frames will give different figures
put CHG in the corner instead of Iran N and you'll have to inverse some arrows and get other percentages

in my theory EHG should represent the people in the Pamir mountains before they split into group 1/ and 2/
if group 2/ EHG came south of the Caspian some 12 ka there would likeley have some EHG gotten into Iran N
by seperating Iran N from EHG you give another definition to EHG, EHG would not be the ancestors coming from the Pamir and spliting in 2 groups, EHG would be represented solely by group 1/

furthermore in my theory the EHG of group 1/ in Europe is not pure EHG any more, it is mixed with some WHG (see also the mtDNA U2e, U4 and U5a found in the European EHG people)
again, by seperating EHG from WHG and labeling the admixed form as EHG is creating a different frame

you could say I'm not accurate by not defining EHG exactly the same way as in the study about the first farmers, but I don't know how I should label the DNA of those tribes coming the Pamir mountains then, more accurate would be to say that EHG is derived from them and admixed with some WHG

oh, and some R1 came east earlier than 12 ka, see the Villabruna R1b 14 ka
but 12 ka, after the flooding of the Caspian Sea finished, the Butovo culture started to spread from the Volga all over Eastern Europe upto Karelia
and TMRCA of R1b-V88 who spread over SW Asia is 11.8 ka

the Villabruna R1b was pré-P297 which means it could have seperated from the main R1b-P297 branch as early as 16.5 ka

MOESAN
28-01-17, 00:29
My compagnon is the real fact and figures man. He's working on it. Here some pre- elementary collection:
http://e-v22.net/webpage/E1b-V22Studies-list.html

Thanks, but all that is about E-V22 - what I look for is SNPs confirmed Y-haplos found in a proved megalithic environement in Europe.
The 2 lone ones I know are from France and are Y-I1a1... -

LeBrok
28-01-17, 00:41
Perhaps these analyses should be read more in terms of affinity than real ancestry. Take the early Mesolithic Hotu IIIb, who is a few thousand years older than the Neolithic Iranians and the Karelians. Unless 'EHG' remained stable in its ancestry proportions for several millennia, it is quite unlikely that they contributed ancestry to Hotu IIIb. What the analysis shows in any case is that there is a deep affinity between Iran, the Caucasus and Eastern Europe.

Using EHG and Iran_Neo as reference population also reveals that this affinity is stronger before the Neolithic. This most likely means that a 'new' population influenced Iran but not Eastern Europe.

As for the direction of exchange, check out Lazaridis' admixture run at K=11 in the supplementary material of that same paper (Fig. 1c). Hotu IIIb completely lacks the western hunter gatherer signal that constitutes the genetic backbone of the Karelian hunters, but 'EHG' does indeed show the 'green' component that peaks in Iran & the Caucasus.

Fig. 1c (resized because of awkward shape):


In HarappaWorld run it is called Baloch admixture. It is ancient ancestral admixture which already existed in Kostenki and Mal'ta boy. EHG and Iranian Farmer/CHG had shared this affinity even before mixing into Yamnaya.

Angela
28-01-17, 01:39
different ancestral reference frames will give different figures
put CHG in the corner instead of Iran N and you'll have to inverse some arrows and get other percentages

in my theory EHG should represent the people in the Pamir mountains before they split into group 1/ and 2/
if group 2/ EHG came south of the Caspian some 12 ka there would likeley have some EHG gotten into Iran N
by seperating Iran N from EHG you give another definition to EHG, EHG would not be the ancestors coming from the Pamir and spliting in 2 groups, EHG would be represented solely by group 1/

furthermore in my theory the EHG of group 1/ in Europe is not pure EHG any more, it is mixed with some WHG (see also the mtDNA U2e, U4 and U5a found in the European EHG people)
again, by seperating EHG from WHG and labeling the admixed form as EHG is creating a different frame

you could say I'm not accurate by not defining EHG exactly the same way as in the study about the first farmers, but I don't know how I should label the DNA of those tribes coming the Pamir mountains then, more accurate would be to say that EHG is derived from them and admixed with some WHG

oh, and some R1 came east earlier than 12 ka, see the Villabruna R1b 14 ka
but 12 ka, after the flooding of the Caspian Sea finished, the Butovo culture started to spread from the Volga all over Eastern Europe upto Karelia
and TMRCA of R1b-V88 who spread over SW Asia is 11.8 ka

the Villabruna R1b was pré-P297 which means it could have seperated from the main R1b-P297 branch as early as 16.5 ka

I think I'll stick with the academic papers, Bicicleur.

I'm aware that some bloggers refuse to acknowledge that anything related to Iran Neolithic or Iran Chalcolithic or Iran "anything" admixed into the EHG populations of the steppe, particularly at anything other than very minor percentages. Given other statements they've made in the past, I think some skepticism is warranted concerning their conclusions.

Usually, this admixture is labeled as CHG, which is based on genomes which are very ancient indeed, and I'm not aware of any evidence that a "pure" CHG population existed at the time of this admixture . Regardless, CHG is mostly Iran Neolithic, whether these bloggers like it or not, so I don't see the point of this refusal to acknowledge the ties with Iran. Also, the authors of this paper have proved to my satisfaction that the mixing agent was not Iran Neolithic "like", but Iran Chalcolithic "like" or perhaps various waves of migration of people whose impact is Iran Chalcolithic "like", which includes some Levant Neolithic.

bicicleur
28-01-17, 09:20
I think I'll stick with the academic papers, Bicicleur.

I'm aware that some bloggers refuse to acknowledge that anything related to Iran Neolithic or Iran Chalcolithic or Iran "anything" admixed into the EHG populations of the steppe, particularly at anything other than very minor percentages. Given other statements they've made in the past, I think some skepticism is warranted concerning their conclusions.

Usually, this admixture is labeled as CHG, which is based on genomes which are very ancient indeed, and I'm not aware of any evidence that a "pure" CHG population existed at the time of this admixture . Regardless, CHG is mostly Iran Neolithic, whether these bloggers like it or not, so I don't see the point of this refusal to acknowledge the ties with Iran. Also, the authors of this paper have proved to my satisfaction that the mixing agent was not Iran Neolithic "like", but Iran Chalcolithic "like" or perhaps various waves of migration of people whose impact is Iran Chalcolithic "like", which includes some Levant Neolithic.

the problem is that WHG, EEF, CHG and the like were defined when only a few anciant genomes were known

today more anciant genomes are known and better 'ancestral components' could be defined
and probably within 1 or 2 years more anciant genomes will be known that will qualify as even better 'ancestral components'

and yet, even if you would find the perfect 'ancestral components' after abt 4-8 ka everything becomes admixed with everything and things become so complicated that these models don't matter any more

IMO Iran Neolithic or Chalcolithic are allready hard to define because they are allready a complicated mixture themselves

there are some archeological arguments too to back up my theory, but the story becomes to long to tell
and I'm sure, in the best case I'll have to adapt that theory when more data become available, in the worst case it will prove wrong
for the moment, to me, taking everything into consideration what I know uptill now, it is the most parsimonious explanation

In the K=14 model of Genetiker I can see a CHG-like component in the Khvalynsk newcomer genome which is absent in the 2 other Khvalynsk genomes.
This Khvalynsk newcomer has mtDNA H, which is also new in Eastern Europe, except in Dnjepr-Donets.
So probably allready since ca 7.5 ka people were crossing the Caucasus into the Pontic Steppe and mixing with the local EHG.
But probably, later (5.7 ka) also Maykop would have brought more extra CHG or Iran Chalcolithic or something similar to the steppe. But that era already coincides with Yamna.

and let me remind you, after this study about the first farmers, I told there would be need for at least a 5th ancestral component with haplo G2a2 to explain the distribution of farming into Europe
soon after that was confirmed by the study with the Tepecik-Ceftlik and Boncuklu genomes

MarkoZ
28-01-17, 11:43
In HarappaWorld run it is called Baloch admixture. It is ancient ancestral admixture which already existed in Kostenki and Mal'ta boy. EHG and Iranian Farmer/CHG had shared this affinity even before mixing into Yamnaya.

I think that's more likely to be due to the limitations of admixture. If the 'green' component was ancient, I'd think it would also show up in the Villabruna-WHG-SHG continuum, which looks to be equally related to K14.

Edit: Another interesting thing I've just noticed looking at Lazaridis' admixture run is the distribution of the WHG component in the Near East. Did a WHG-like population inhabit Eastern Anatolia, Armenia and perhaps Transcaucasia as a whole?

LeBrok
28-01-17, 18:16
I think that's more likely to be due to the limitations of admixture. If the 'green' component was ancient, I'd think it would also show up in the Villabruna-WHG-SHG continuum, which looks to be equally related to K14.
It did show up there, however due to local drift (the distance, mutations, bottlenecking, refugia, etc) they developed different alleles and old Baloch became something else, like Mediterranean admixture for example. While in Central Asia new Baloch is still classified and connected to old Baloch. It is a measure of similarities than anything elses, perhaps in relativistic way. In this case Baloch in Steppe is cousin (same common source, more similar alleles?) of Baloch in Iran, but not "old Baloch" in WHGs. They are only two options in this case. Baloch in step might be from recent contact with CHG/Iranian Farmer, or it might be from very ancient common relative. If it was from recent contact we would have seen some Caucasus being transfer too, because CHG and Farmer is very rich in it. We don't, however. So only second option is valid, they did have a common ancestor who gave them Baloch. Judging by distribution of Baloch, it was some sort of Central Asian h-g, and most likely from its expansion after LGM.

MarkoZ
29-01-17, 12:38
It did show up there, however due to local drift (the distance, mutations, bottlenecking, refugia, etc) they developed different alleles and old Baloch became something else, like Mediterranean admixture for example. While in Central Asia new Baloch is still classified and connected to old Baloch. It is a measure of similarities than anything elses, perhaps in relativistic way. In this case Baloch in Steppe is cousin (same common source, more similar alleles?) of Baloch in Iran, but not "old Baloch" in WHGs. They are only two options in this case. Baloch in step might be from recent contact with CHG/Iranian Farmer, or it might be from very ancient common relative. If it was from recent contact we would have seen some Caucasus being transfer too, because CHG and Farmer is very rich in it. We don't, however. So only second option is valid, they did have a common ancestor who gave them Baloch. Judging by distribution of Baloch, it was some sort of Central Asian h-g, and most likely from its expansion after LGM.

Hold on, I am of course talking about the 'green' component in the ADMIXTURE run by Lazaridis. I am not convinced that the 'Baloch' component is all the same. Isn't the latter based on modern populations?

LeBrok
29-01-17, 20:30
Hold on, I am of course talking about the 'green' component in the ADMIXTURE run by Lazaridis. I am not convinced that the 'Baloch' component is all the same. Isn't the latter based on modern populations? Yes, it looks like green is mostly Baloch with some Caucasian.

Admixtures are derived from modern populations.

Do note that the admixture components do not necessarily represent real ancestral populations. Also, the names I have chosen for the components should be thought of as mnemonics to ease discussion. I chose them based on which populations in my data these components peaked in. They do not tell anything directly about ancestral populations. The best way to look at these admixture results is by comparing individuals and populations.
http://www.harappadna.org/2012/05/harappaworld-admixture/