Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It is a very important problem in historical population genetics, especially when looking at the Y-DNA of patriarchal and elitists societies like Proto-Indo-Europeans. Elite Kurgan burials may not be representative of the common folk from the culture in question. If, as you say, there was one ruling dynasty that expanded its territory over time but always placed royal princes as local rulers (like the Mongols did much later), then obviously we get a very skewed view of the Y-DNA in the overall society. That may simply be the reason why R1b-L51 hasn't shown up in Yamna yet. But it also means that there could have been plenty of Mesolithic (R1a, I2a) and Neolithic (G2a, T1a) lineages that were part of Yamna, but that are invisible to us now. The same would also apply to Corded Ware, Sintashta and any other Bronze Age Indo-European culture. If the ruling dynasty lasts long enough in one region, over time it will become the dominant male lineage in that region, even if it starts with in single individual. I think that would explain why R1b got replaced by R1a in Central Asia, and how the overwhelming majority of Indo-European Y-DNA that made it to the Indian subcontinent were R1a and not R1b, even though the European component of Indian genomes is about half Yamna R1b and half EHG R1a.
I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) is also known as Cont3b. It has a very wide distribution all over Europe, and even places like Georgia, but is especially common in Central Europe.
Calling those R1 tribes "mongoloid" or "Uralid" is simply so wrong. Uralic people are dominant in N Haplogroup. All Uralic people have a significant real Han like/modern Sibirian admixture. R1 tribes not(exceptions are there always).But the Samara EHG had blonde hair, according to FireHaired14:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1993675580
At least according to previous info, because now it turns out that he also had a red hair mutation:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31766-Update-Natural-Selection-in-the-Last-8-000-Years
Maybe he had what is called reddish-blonde / strawberry-blonde?
Karelian EHG had darker hair, maybe due to that Mongoloid admixture?
Hair colors of EHG samples according to FireHaired14 (Brown/Black = Karelia; Brown/Blonde = Samara):
On the other hand, autosomal results are similar, Karelian "East Asian" portion is only slightly larger:
They can be modeled as WHG + ANE mix, with very minor South Asian + East Asian admixtures:
Maybe blonde hair is indeed an originally Uralid trait then ???
That R1a EHG had mtDNA haplogroup C1g - suggesting that his mother could be the "Mongoloid" part to that mix:
MtDNA C was also present in Neolithic Ukraine and in the Catacomb culture. It is still found in Eastern Europe today. That doesn't mean any of these people had a Mongoloid mother. I explained in the R1a page's mtDNA correspondence that mtDNA probably originated with Y-DNA R* as Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mammoth hunters during the late Paleolithic. The subclades of C found in Europe are C1, C4a and C5, and all of them are found in the Altai region, southern Siberia and above all western Siberia. That's pretty much were R1* and R1a* originated. In other words, just like U2e and U4, haplogroups C1, C4a and C5 would have come with R1a to Eastern Europe and could have been present there thousands of years before the Mesolithic sample you mention.
acoording to Genetiker Kostenki was C1b1 - related to the former 'C5'
Barcin neolithic arrived with cattle and ovicaprids 8.6 ka. They came across Anatola overland - at around the same time cattle arrived at Catal Hoyuk and other sites in Central Anatolia (before that they only had ovicaprids)
Before Barcin arrived neolithic there were allready HG on the Marmara coast.
7.8 ka cardial ware arrived at the Marmara coast with pigs.
The NW Anatolian samples were after 8.6 ka but before 7.8 ka and taken from only 2 sites.
IMO the local HG were I and the others - G2a - J2a - H2 - C1a2 were farmers who came from further east.
As for C1a2, the TMRCA between La Brana and the neolithic C1a2 according to YFull is 43200 years, that is at the onset of the Aurignacian.
IMO this was a split between European C1a2 (La Brana) and SW Asian C1a2 (neolithic)
Are you sure it is the TMRCA between La Brana and the Neolithic samples, or is it the overall TMRCA for all known C1a2, including modern samples ?
No most likely E-M78 was already present in Italy and Spain before neolitich revolution, going by diversity. No E-M78 has been found so far in Neolitich Balkans/Anatolia.Its been speculated in previous forums that E-m78 and J2b entered the Balkans at the same time. There is the same proportion of E-M78 and J2b throughout the continent. Which, according to the new map, would mean these mixed population was formed in Anatolia and then moved to the Balkans.
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.That is very interesting. It looks like there was a convergence of different tribes and/or technologies/domesticates around 7000-6500 BCE that kickstarted the Neolithic expansion to Europe. Suddenly, instead of having cereal farmers, ovicaprid herders and cattle herders separately, these Neolithic people had all three + pottery.
Its highly doubtful that T1a where goat herders along with J1 because because there is zero evidence of any T1a in the arabian peninsula or eastern Africa of any T1a older than 2000years.
T-L446 appears to show greater variation in Europe than it does in the middle east. The T-Y7381 branch found in Saudi Arabia (and heavily tested) is relatively young (1400 ybp) so could be the result of a recent migration from further north.
The paper the Levant versus the Horn of Africa also states this.If T1a and J1 where together as goat herders , they would also be together in the Arabian peninsula , which they are not. 44% J1 and 3.5% T1a ..........J1 are the nomadic group. I see T1a as per Haak , that is 95% EEF ( farmers)
The 2 x T1a in early Neolithic Central germany are surrounded by 8 x G2a and 1 x H2 ..............the only conclusion is that T1a was around with G2a in the caucasus .............IMO the ancient T in northern Europe are from the Azeri lands today.
Were there is G2a in the Alps of Tyrol, you find 5% of T1a, where you find G2a in the mountains of central france you find 4% of T1a. Where you find G2a in the mountains of central Italy you find nearly 9% of T1a.
The other factor is that all T men have the marker TL-P326, this union and eventual split still sees T and L in places together in the present and in the ancient times.....Dagestan, Lezkins, Caucasus, levant, Anatolia, Tyrol Alps, Estonia, Bulgaria etc etc...............so where ever T you should also find L nearly
The TL formation first rose in the sind valley of South Asia and the split between T and L somewhere near by.
After being together with L and G2a group , the next marker it is with is J2 ( phoenician main marker )............be it 14000 years ago ( T1-Pages21 ) in the northern Levant or 9000 years ago in northern egypt it also trvelled with the phoenician J2.
Btw there is a lot of L marker in northern Levant.
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31446-G2a-didn-t-have-domesticated-animals?p=463311#post463311
The paper I was citing is from 2013.The most recent papers claim the opposite.
See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/An...y_Neolithic_of_the_Balkans_and_Central_Europe
Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC."Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."
Some site dating could be off? I'll be glad to get to the bottom of this conundrum. Intriguing anyway.This makes sense as it seems that the earliest farmers to leave the Near East, those who went to Cyprus, already had domesticated animals.
See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g...als in the early Neolithic of Europe&f=false
The Neolithic in Cyprus:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/swiny.pdf
By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.
It was a farmer society heavily hybridized with locals.
Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka
LeBrok: The paper I was citing is from 2013.
Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.
It is not directly related to your map but this may be a good place to write something I think many would disagree with. It is an opinion I've had for some time about the spread of agriculture - considering a lot of information we have collected about haplogroups, both from modern populations and aDNA, it looks to me as if agriculture was not spread by human migrations, but it was more like a spread of a cultural phenomenon.
This is partly why my view is a bit different when G2a is in question.
I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.This is the paper to which you're referring, right?
""Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long
Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:
"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17, 30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig"
I've just re-read the paper, which I should have done before I responded to you, so my apologies. Nowhere in the paper can I see that the authors address the issue of the presence of domesticated animals in the early Neolithic in Greece or generally in the Balkans. They are addressing only one specific area, that around the Danube Gorges, where there was a relatively large group of sedentary fisher gatherers. The authors, through strontium isotope analysis, show that starting from around 6200 BC there were several waves of newcomers. Some new settlements were started on land more amenable to the agricultural package, and these vastly increased over time. However, a few of the prior fisher-gatherer settlements continued to be occupied for some time. It is those settlements whose subsistence strategies they discuss. Even those settlements show some genetic admixture based on the variety of skeleton types, and this increased over time. Eventually, the fisher/hunters, if they did not flee, were totally absorbed by the farmers. This may be the place where the Anatolian farmers picked up their 10% KO1 like European Mesolithic WHG like ancestry.
The paragraph which you cited is referring to the very earliest time of contact, when these people had apparently started to trade for new kinds of goods, and perhaps some wives, but as they were in a phase of "cultural hybridity", according to the authors, they had not yet adopted domesticated animals. They hadn't even adopted farming yet, as the authors make a point of saying that their subsistence strategies hadn't changed.
""The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17,30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig""
The paper is very confusingly written, but I think if you read it again you'll see what I mean. These people held onto to their prior subsistence patterns for quite a while, before eventually, within a few hundred years, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers around them.
So, I guess my point is that there is no contradiction between this paper and all of the other archaeological work that has been done in the Balkans on this topic.
Ed. Sorry, this was prepared last night and I forgot to post it.
I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later
PS. In same article about Sesklo, an archaeologist claimed that in "Pre-potery" phase they used more primitive pottery kind. I lost a link, but I think it was a book from 80s available online.
PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/An...y_Neolithic_of_the_Balkans_and_Central_Europe
This thread has been viewed 47231 times.