More DNA from stone age European(Swedish) farmers and hunter gatherers

[Greying Wanderer]

As with la Brana 1 I was surprised to find that a number of disease resistance genes have been found among hunter-gatherers. I somehow, in my imagination, have always compared the influx of farmers in Europe with the colonisation of North-America, where Indians are the WHGs and the whites are the EEFs. This analogy obviously works only on a higher level. But the difference in outcome is what is so surprising. Where American Indians - when defined as broad as possible - only make up 1,5% of the North-American population WHGs actually roughly make up one third of Europe's genetic material.

That is a colossally successful outcome of if you compare that to other hunter-gatherers around the world. The Indians were largely exterminated by the smallpox. One may be tempted to point that to their isolation, but a similar event happened to Siberian native tribes that are closely related to Indian. And similar things happened (and even happen today) to almost all tribes that cane into first contact with farmers. Small pox and even diseases such as common cold decimated (and continue to decimate) the tribes of the Andamans, the San and Bushmen, the last Indian tribes of the Amazones, the Negrito's, the Aboriginals and countless others.

Jared Diamond used this to partly explain the cultural dominance of the European civilization in his slightly flawed but highly readable book Guns Germs and Steel.

So, now we see hunter-gatherers that actually blended in. And consider this. The remaining American Indians are largely admixed with Europeans whereas present day American population is hardly admixed with Indians (a situation, mind you, that is quite different in Latin America). But after centuries contact WHG were still rather a pure breed and it was actually the farmers that mixed.

The European hunter-gatherers were a hugely successful breed, and the disease resistance genes play an important role in that success, I think

One possibility might be an initial die-off from first contact but because - unlike North America - the farmers couldn't spread everywhere the surviving HGs had time to bounce back (at least in some regions).

 

[Greying Wanderer]

Mind you, the notion that North-Europeans have one third to two fifths of WHG genetic material brings a number of problems with it. This study specifically claims that farmers absorbed WHGs as they spread rather than the other way around. But that still leaves one of the problems that arises.

A while ago another study, I think it was also by Skoglund, claimed that the genetic investigation of Gotland Pitted Ware Culture showed that at the onset of the neolithic the population was completely replaced. [1] They showed tables of the rate of mtDNA in current day as compared to the baltics and the PWC finds to prove that point. However, when la Brana was published however, it clearly showed close relation to Northern Europeans rather than Iberians. How can both those assumptions be true?

I have been wondering about this a lot. Where has the mtDNA gone? Swedes have rather a high WHG rate, yet very low U5 (or U4) mtDNA. If Skoglund is right and farmers mobbed up WHGs we would expect rather a high number of U5/4.

I notices the Saami, who may autosomically not be a good proxy for WHG but clearly are decended from them, have 50% U5 but also 50% V. The latter is considered to be introduced by farmers, but the high incidence of V among the Saami is considered to be the result of a founder effect. This led me to thinks about the Ertebolla culture and the Swifterband culture, two cultures that existed alongside the LBK culture but archeological evidence clearly shows continuation and slow adaptation to farming. They kept pigs and cultivated barley rather than wheat. What if especially the Ertebolla culture became so successful that LBK and/or Funnel Beaker women married into the culture, and due to the same founder effect their mtDNA became the main mtDNA? We do know from DNA from pig remains that at first domesticated pigs - both from LBK and Ertebolla - showed great affinity to the Near-east while later local DNA prevails in both cultures [2]. This at least shows that both cultures had a lot of contact.

So, I think the lack of U5 in Sweden may be due to the success of local hunter-gatherers in adapting rather than their replacement.


[1] http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/04/ancient-dna-from-neolithic-sweden.html
[2] http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient-pig-dna-and-the-neolithic-transition/

I think that's it personally. The HGs in the far north somehow or other (Cucuteni influence, megalith culture influence, LBK influence) adapted a hybrid hunting / herding / farming culture that gave them the population density to compete successfully. I wonder if the transition to farmer mtdna within that population may have been the result of selection in place with the farmer mtdna bringing with it some particular advantage.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I think that's it personally. The HGs in the far north somehow or other (Cucuteni influence, megalith culture influence, LBK influence) adapted a hybrid hunting / herding / farming culture that gave them the population density to compete successfully. I wonder if the transition to farmer mtdna within that population may have been the result of selection in place with the farmer mtdna bringing with it some particular advantage.

It is a horrible assumption that northern Europeans descend 100% from the farmers and hunter gatherers that lived in their region. There are loads of evidence that there has been large population replacement in northwest Europe, by Indo Europeans from east Europe, therefore most of for example Irish's Mesolithic ancestors probably lived in Russia.

mtDNA and Y DNA doesn't help to explain modern European's high amount of WHG-ANE ancestry. Latvians for example are around 70% WHG+ANE and 55% WHG, yet less than 10% have Y DNA I and less than 20% have mtDNA U5, U4, or U2. The WHG and ANE percentages though are probably accurate. We do know that most northern Europeans are more related to prehistoric European hunter gatherers than to European farmers, so there is no way they have more farmer than hunter ancestry.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Pigmentation SNPs of MA1 and AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/pigmentation-snp-genotypes-for-malta-1-and-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that MA1 had dark eyes unlike Mesolithic and Neolithic European hunter gatherers. The results are constant with MA1 and AG2 having dark hair, but there are not enough SNPs to be for sure.

AG2 had skin lighting mutation rs1426654 A/A, like Motala12, Stuttgart, Otzi, Gok2, and bronze-iron age Siberian Indo Iranians, proving this mutation is very ancient in west Eurasians. AG2 having this mutation is constant with a recent study which estimated this mutation to be 22,000-28,000 years old. I think it is older though because it existed in WHG, ANE, and middle easterns(brother to WHG+basal Eurasian), who are the three main ancestral groups of modern west Eurasians.

MA1 had rs1426654 G/G, like most European hunter gatherer samples, and is evidence the majority of WHG-ANE hunter gatherers did. MA1 had rs28777 C/C so he most likely had rs16891982 C/C, like most European hunter gatherer samples. MA1 had rs12203592 C/C, unlike all the European hunter gatherer samples who had at least one T alleles, meaning it may be a WHG-specific trait. MA1 and AG2 are evidence stone age European hunter gatherer's alleles in known skin pigmentation SNPs hadn't changed for some 30,000 years. It would be interesting to see what alleles AG2 had in blue eye haplotypes. He may have had light eyes like the European hunter gatherers but i doubt it, because native Americans, south Asians, and Siberians have a high amount of ANE ancestry and are fixated for brown eyes.

Y SNP calls for AG2.

http://genetiker.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/y-snp-calls-for-afontova-gora-2/

The results confirm that he had hg F, and probably P. He has the only P mutation he was tested for, P-L781/PF5875/YSC0000255. He is Q1a1-F1215+, but was not tested for anything in between P and Q1a1. AG2 is R1-P245/PF6117+ and R1a1a1-Page7+, but he was R-P224/PF6050-, R1-P286/PF6136-, and R1a1-L122/M448/PF6237-.

Now i understand why others besides Geneticker who did the same tests said he belonged to either R1a1 or Q1a.

AG2 confirms that hg P was popular and probably largely spread with ANE populations.

P was all over Eurasia before the Neolithic. R1b and probably R1a were in west Asia and or central Asia-eastern Europe, R2 was in south Asia, Q was in south Asia-central Asia-Siberia-and the Americas, and P* lineages were in south Asia.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

It is a horrible assumption that northern Europeans descend 100% from the farmers and hunter gatherers that lived in their region. There are loads of evidence that there has been large population replacement in northwest Europe, by Indo Europeans from east Europe, therefore most of for example Irish's Mesolithic ancestors probably lived in Russia.

mtDNA and Y DNA doesn't help to explain modern European's high amount of WHG-ANE ancestry. Latvians for example are around 70% WHG+ANE and 55% WHG, yet less than 10% have Y DNA I and less than 20% have mtDNA U5, U4, or U2. The WHG and ANE percentages though are probably accurate. We do know that most northern Europeans are more related to prehistoric European hunter gatherers than to European farmers, so there is no way they have more farmer than hunter ancestry.

It's a good thing I'm not making that assumption then.


I'm saying the northern HGs were influenced by the Atlantic megalithic farmers (more like traders?) along the Atlantic coast in the west (creating Funnelbeaker) and by Cucuteni (creating Globular Amphora) in the east, merging later into Corded Ware. In both cases I think the **form** of farming was adapted to the northern forests i.e. a hybrid hunting / herding form probably semi-nomadic using slash & burn to create temporary grazing and crop land and because that hybrid form of farming was closer to the traditional HG lifestyle that made it easier for the HGs to adapt to it - hence the survival of a much larger proportion of HG dna in the north.


If that is correct then the next question becomes why did the proportions of farmer/HG mtdna change (as it seems to have done). I'd suggest there was bride trading and the farmer females carried some advantageous alleles that allowed selection in place.


nb I also think there needs to be a clear distinction between northern Europe and northwestern Europe. I think ydna I mostly survived and expanded in the region centered around Scandinavia & Baltic and then moved to Britain & Ireland with the Celts/Saxons/Vikings/Normans. Before that I think the Britain & Ireland story was mostly part of the maritime Atlantic story.

 

[MOESAN]

I post here because I don't find justnow a more adapted thread : it concerns as autosomals as Y-DNAas mt-Dna as ancient DNA thread (all things are tied one to another)


The almost proof of the crossed demicorigin of some western neolithical settlements (I think in cousins of'Loschbour' introgression), I saw in last Neolitic cultures asMichelsberg (and Altheim) based upon archeological physicalanthropology, is in the different organization of some of theirsettlements and the bigger part taken by the wild hunted animals('Jagdwild') among the animals bones remnants found there -
I know we can argument and propose someother causes like the type of ground or territory occupied but itseems not too serious because they occuped also the same ancientplaces sometimes -
Jan Steffens, in 'Bedeutung der Jagdin der Trichterbecher Kultur' (2005,Adobe Reader) studied the distributions of wild and tame animalsremnants in N-Germany, N-Poland and S-Scandinavia : he foundvery important differences (highwild a-levels :South Sweden, N-N-Sjaelland in De,amrk, Westphaly, Mecklemburg andSchleswig (partly), level : other places of Schlesvig orDenmark, lowwilda-levels : a lot of places in Jutland/Jylland and themiddle-Weser and Saale riviers, Bohemia and Poland – he attributedthese differences to different ecology in places but also todifferent background with more or less late-mesolithical people amongthe populations... - I think the important Long-Barrows element amongcoastal North Sea and South-Scandinavia, important element too in theFunnelbeaker cristallization, countained a weighty component ofprevioulsy Hunters-Gatherers of diverse places in Northern andAtlantic Europe, and that even at first, they were less « agricole »than the Linear Bank Ceramic and even than the Cardials – just abet – the less « hunter » were the more southern as awhole, came from South-East (rivers from Bohemia) and someof theJutland and Fyn island (here the « invaders » theory fromSouth is less valuable than an ecologic difficulty for agriculture, Ithink -

 

[FrankN]

I post here because I don't find justnow a more adapted thread : it concerns as autosomals as Y-DNAas mt-Dna as ancient DNA thread (all things are tied one to another)


The almost proof of the crossed demicorigin of some western neolithical settlements (I think in cousins of'Loschbour' introgression), I saw in last Neolitic cultures asMichelsberg (and Altheim) based upon archeological physicalanthropology, is in the different organization of some of theirsettlements and the bigger part taken by the wild hunted animals('Jagdwild') among the animals bones remnants found there -
I know we can argument and propose someother causes like the type of ground or territory occupied but itseems not too serious because they occuped also the same ancientplaces sometimes -
Jan Steffens, in 'Bedeutung der Jagdin der Trichterbecher Kultur' (2005,Adobe Reader) studied the distributions of wild and tame animalsremnants in N-Germany, N-Poland and S-Scandinavia : he foundvery important differences (highwild a-levels :South Sweden, N-N-Sjaelland in De,amrk, Westphaly, Mecklemburg andSchleswig (partly), level : other places of Schlesvig orDenmark, lowwilda-levels : a lot of places in Jutland/Jylland and themiddle-Weser and Saale riviers, Bohemia and Poland – he attributedthese differences to different ecology in places but also todifferent background with more or less late-mesolithical people amongthe populations... - I think the important Long-Barrows element amongcoastal North Sea and South-Scandinavia, important element too in theFunnelbeaker cristallization, countained a weighty component ofprevioulsy Hunters-Gatherers of diverse places in Northern andAtlantic Europe, and that even at first, they were less « agricole »than the Linear Bank Ceramic and even than the Cardials – just abet – the less « hunter » were the more southern as awhole, came from South-East (rivers from Bohemia) and someof theJutland and Fyn island (here the « invaders » theory fromSouth is less valuable than an ecologic difficulty for agriculture, Ithink -

You may have missed this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nature-Established-in-the-Mid-Neolithic/page3
A few comments:

1. Bohemia and Middle Elbe / Saale were traditional LBK territory, and experienced the Neoithic revolution (by immigration from the middle Danube) even earlier than the Rhine. Thus, interpretation needs to consider that in the SE Funnelbeaker area, agriculture was introduced 1,500 years earlier than further north.
2. There are also comparisons available between different LBK areas for the late 6th millennium BC. In the Middle Elbe / Saale region, wild animals accounted for around 10% of all animal bones (and meat intake there was lower than among early English farmers). Along the Rhine, 50% of all animal bones were from wild animals (mainly Aurochs). There has furthermore been research whether male and female skeletons from the Stuttgart LBK grave field show signs of a division of labour. They do: Female joints were equally used, males had overused their right arms by what was interpreted as "frequent throwing movement". So far on the Stuttgart EEF!
3. While I am at that EEF. There is substantial data on LBK EEFs in the Ebe-Saale region. Predominant is yDNA G2a, a little bit of P*(x G,H,I,J,K) has also been found. I guess the latter means R. EEF mtDNA includes H (17%), N1a1a (12%), K (26%), T2 (17%), and J (12%). Except for J, these mtDNA hgs also dominate the Spanish Cardial/Epi-Cardial & middle Neolithic samples.
   Motala, OTOH, gives us a pretty good idea of NHG genes: yDNA I, and mtDNA U(x K) - this combination has also been found in most other Mesolithic samples that I am aware of, including the Loschbour WHG. So, what was the Stuttgart EEF, again? yDNA G,, mtDNA K, which seems to be the most common EEF combination? Or G/H, which would provide the link from EEF to Europe's dominant mtDNA today? Oh, no, it was yDNA I2a1a (the Sardinian type), and mtDNA T2c1d1. Looks like an offspring from a male HG and a female early farmer. At least the female side is EEF - unfortunately from a hg that has become virtually extinct in Central Europe. Sorry, but I refuse to accept any conclusions someone is making on the EEF/ HG relations in Central and Northern Europe that are based on this Stuttgart sample! (That wasn't to you Moesan, but to other contributors here).
4. Let me also add that the late LBK on the upper Rhine is characterised by strange events: Cannibalism in Herxheim, a whole village (Vaihingen 20 km north of Stuttgart) killed in a violent attack by what, according to the tools used, were other LBK "farmers" from nearby, similar finds in Northern Switzerland, with females aged 15-30 suspiciously absent from the killed, etc. I need to look up the study again, but the rate of people that died violently during the LBK is estimated at between 7 and 19% - along the Rhine during the late LBK, the rate would probably even be higher. The former figure corresponds to 19th century France (including the Napoleonic Wars), the latter to Germany between 1900 and 1950 (WW I and II). Here goes the demographic advantage of early farmers...
5. Returning to hunting vs. farming in Northern Germany /Denmark: The Steffens report is interesting, but partly based on outdated information. One of the locations, Wolkenwehe near Bad Oldesloe, e.g. has in 2007-2009 been re-excavated, and yielded more than 60% domesticated animals instead of 43.5% as listed in the Steffens report. Another problem is that Steffens excluded cattle and pig bones, as it could not be distinguished whether they originated from wild or domesticated animals. In the meantime, such distinction can be made, at least for cattle vs. Aurochs, by DNA analysis probably also for pigs. If, however, comparison is only made between sheep/goat on one side and deer/ boar on the other side, results aren't going to be very meaningful for the Northern European plain, which is today Europe's dominating milk production region. Note furthermore that there is substantial indication that several locations, including Wolkenwehe, had a well-developed industry of processing animal bones into tools and decorative items. The bones might have arrived at some locations (especially those on the Sjaeland north coast, with bone counts as high as 25,000 over just 100 years) from distant HG communities for further processing. Wolkenwehe, 30 km distant from the coast, e.g. had significant shares of seal bones. The Mesolithic Swifterband culture in the Netherlands seems to have collected deer teeth for trading purposes, while in a Michelsberger Kultur grave in the Rhineland, a belt made out of 160 polished deer teeth was found. Finally, 13% of all bones, with particular concentration in swamp/ wetland areas, were from beaver or river otter. While definitely a HG activity, I (and actually also Steffens) doubt that beaver and otter were primarily hunted for their meat.
6. All available evidence points at a quick and non-violent transition from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. Neoltihisation reached the Mecklenburg coast around 4,100 BC, Sjaelland by 4,000, and Northern Jutland by 3,900. It was carried by immigration from the south-east (Schöningen/ Baalbuerge cultures) and, in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony, from the south-west (Michelsberg culture). While EEF DNA is well traceable in northern FB settlements, the original NHG gene pool (I / UxK) was preserved, mtDNA U even becomes the dominating hg in the late Neolithic Bernburg culture on the Middle Elbe / Saale (pre Corded-Ware!). Pollen diagrams suggest an early phase of intensive slash-and-burn until 3.800 BC. Latest from 3,500 onwards, cereal production intensifies, supported by ox-drawn scratch ploughs. Planted cereals include emmer, barley and wheat. Some archaeologists suppose Northern Germany and Denmark to have developed into an agricultural surplus producer that nourished areas further south, especially the mining and metallurgical complexes around the Harz and in the Siegerland. Note also that in all likelihood most of the Funnelbeakers and associated ceramics were produced on the Middle Elbe / Saale, while Saxony and Bohemia specialised more on linen production and processing (which isn't apparent in the North German archaeological record, so textiles were probably imported) - those people needed external food supply. Schleswig-Holstein has today the highest agricultural productivity in Germany (9 t/ha, France 7.4 t/ha, 2012 data). Why was such a highly productive area not settled earlier by farmers? I guess it has to do with climate change - the submerge of Doggerland affected the Scandinavian climate very favourably (gulf stream), while increasing the flooding risk for the valleys further south that used to be the traditional farming area.
7. Last but not least - what were Funnelbeakers, and that other ceramic innovation of the Baalberge culture on the photo below, used for? I only see two plausible possibilities: Milk, or beer. Actually, apple juice (there is some indication of systematic apple cultivation in FB North Germany) might be a third option. In any case - where you find a Funnelbeaker, there should be more than 95% probability that farmers lived close by.

 

[MOESAN]

This paper puts the Swedish Mesolithic and Neolithic into European and Near East context, especially as concerns the expansion of agriculture and the associated stone tool industry:
http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf28/28knutsson.pdf

In other words - already Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers had a certain division of labour and some longer-distance trade.

In other words: The expansion of agriculture did not necessarily crowd-out hunter-gatherers. For early Neolithic Scandinavia (and that is most likely not he only place where this applied), it provided the opportunity to set traditional skills - flint prospection, collection and tool-making - in value, and receive other necessities or amenities (e.g. leather, linen clothing, pottery) in exchange. I would, btw, also guess that the contact across the Baltic Sea between Pomeranian LBK and Swedish Kongemose groups was rather initiated by the latter, as fishermen..

As concerns the "specialists" mentioned in the article, I am quite sure that outside the Mediterranean, most of them were from hunter-gatherer communities, i.e. typically Y-DNA I2* This is possibly the reason you find that haplogroup, often in rather homeopathic doses, almost everywhere where Neolithic mining occurred, with closely-related subclades spread as far apart fro each other as from Ireland to the Ural mountains.

Concerning Y-I2a2 (ex I1c ex I2b) Ilong time thought it was possibly an haplo born by metallurgy skilledpeople coming with other Y-haplos from East (Cucuteni-Tripolje,post-neolithical), pushed to W-Bohemia-E-Bavaria and around, byherders tribes of steppic Europeans – it was just a bet – thelater maps of distributions of this Y-haplo and other people theoriespush me to abandon this thought, for a while -
I wait ancient D to show us the ancientlocalization of « old » Y-I2a2, but its todaydistribution, spotted, spred away and mixed with other male haplosleave me confused -
the NFrank explanation (based upon theLiechtenstein cave) and proposing the Hunt-Gath's fellows (Y-I2a2) asleaders and scouts for poor feeble post-neolithical farmers and herdsfor searching metals ore, based on their supposed skills concerninggeography, topology, fishing-seafaring, and their better skills atwar is, for me, a bit uncertain – as him I don't think Hunt-Gath'swere overwhelmingly replaced in everyplace of Europe (I posted morethan a time for that) but my present thought is I don't see peopleignoring metal for a long long time, taking the leading place in thesearch and exploitation of it when it is other people, seemingly inbetter position (Copper Bronze warlike people) that made with it –the very majority of Y-I2a2 there in this Harz cave is maybe a verylocal and family biased exception – other sepultures of the samecultures and of the precedent local cultures could as well show usvery lower %s of Y-I2a2, closer to the today %s ? - for now I'mnot able to say what is right, NFrank's feeling or mine... - but Isee better a foreign winner males elite taking the strong side insuch an occurrence – uneasy to say...
Y-I2a2 could well be ancient in Europebut not by force in the current localizations – there are somehotspots in N and W Germany, NE and SW Scandinavia, Switzerland, andsome presence in NE Russia, East Moscow, E-Brittany-, the slopes ofthe C-Pyrénées, N-Greece, NW Italy, Britain and Ireland – andvery little spot around Campobasso in SC Italy (more recent origin?)
hard ! - after some firstintroductions in W-Europe by metals prospectors, it could haveparticipated to the eclosion of later cultures with an expansion andno more tight links with ore places – we can think (it is not atheory, only a possibility among others) in the Bell Beakers actionin W-Europe – the Britain localizations could be linked toPicts/Cruithni, Belgii and later Germanics, all of them culturally indebt to BBs – we have the Iberian localization, more on the West (+Portugal) than the East, spite Portugal shows as a whole moreneolithical imput than central and NE Spain, as for y-DNA andautosomals DNA – the position in central Pyrenees could beexplained by a BB early imput OR later celtic-germanic passages onthe way to Iberia (Sombor port, Bronze and Iron Ages for the Celts)with some people staying there -
in Germany it could fit well enough theThuringian region, where a succession of Donau mediated SEEuropean cultures (Neolithical and Bronze) came constantly incontact with autochtones and more NE Bronze people along thecenturies (the cause being in the metals richness and the riversnetwork) – the S-W Norway-Sweden and Denmark density fits bronzeAge colonizers of mixed BB type and N-E Sweden hotspot, aside apossible drift effect, could reflect a S to N ancient colonization(some forumer said somewhere (poor mind of mine) that metals oreswere found in N-Sweden, but I don't forget centuries passed there,and people too -
the possibility exists that by truehazard, new Y-I2a2 people (mixed with others) came fromSwitzerland-Elsass places, their farther origin in E-Carpathians,with the L38 kind mutated in the Alps, when the other subclades ofY-I2a2 were « autochtonous » before them ??? Hans DeBeule thought I2a2-L38 formed in the W-Alps and came up with peopleof the Rhine-Meuse area (me : Galians ? Belgii?) atLa Tène through Belgium to Britain – he excluded a Michelsbergerlate Neolithic heritage and even a Early Bronze Age spread (even ifnot absolutely excluded), he remarked L38 was almost absent of theNetherlands (but present in Liechtenstein cave, Urnfield culture, butUrnfields have no wide ethnic signification, so it was surely soonerthere) – so Celts, and before, proto-Celts or/and proto-Germanics(with BBs school?) - in Germany they seem (at first glance) amountains refuge people, and yet, but in other regions it is not thecase – very hard to say, because as a rule the richer metalsregions are in the hills and mountains ! - it proves the limitsof the intellectual theories without ancient factual traces...

 

[MOESAN]

You may have missed this thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...nature-Established-in-the-Mid-Neolithic/page3
A few comments:

1. Bohemia and Middle Elbe / Saale were traditional LBK territory, and experienced the Neoithic revolution (by immigration from the middle Danube) even earlier than the Rhine. Thus, interpretation needs to consider that in the SE Funnelbeaker area, agriculture was introduced 1,500 years earlier than further north.
2. There are also comparisons available between different LBK areas for the late 6th millennium BC. In the Middle Elbe / Saale region, wild animals accounted for around 10% of all animal bones (and meat intake there was lower than among early English farmers). Along the Rhine, 50% of all animal bones were from wild animals (mainly Aurochs). There has furthermore been research whether male and female skeletons from the Stuttgart LBK grave field show signs of a division of labour. They do: Female joints were equally used, males had overused their right arms by what was interpreted as "frequent throwing movement". So far on the Stuttgart EEF!
3. While I am at that EEF. There is substantial data on LBK EEFs in the Ebe-Saale region. Predominant is yDNA G2a, a little bit of P*(x G,H,I,J,K) has also been found. I guess the latter means R. EEF mtDNA includes H (17%), N1a1a (12%), K (26%), T2 (17%), and J (12%). Except for J, these mtDNA hgs also dominate the Spanish Cardial/Epi-Cardial & middle Neolithic samples.
   Motala, OTOH, gives us a pretty good idea of NHG genes: yDNA I, and mtDNA U(x K) - this combination has also been found in most other Mesolithic samples that I am aware of, including the Loschbour WHG. So, what was the Stuttgart EEF, again? yDNA G,, mtDNA K, which seems to be the most common EEF combination? Or G/H, which would provide the link from EEF to Europe's dominant mtDNA today? Oh, no, it was yDNA I2a1a (the Sardinian type), and mtDNA T2c1d1. Looks like an offspring from a male HG and a female early farmer. At least the female side is EEF - unfortunately from a hg that has become virtually extinct in Central Europe. Sorry, but I refuse to accept any conclusions someone is making on the EEF/ HG relations in Central and Northern Europe that are based on this Stuttgart sample! (That wasn't to you Moesan, but to other contributors here).
4. Let me also add that the late LBK on the upper Rhine is characterised by strange events: Cannibalism in Herxheim, a whole village (Vaihingen 20 km north of Stuttgart) killed in a violent attack by what, according to the tools used, were other LBK "farmers" from nearby, similar finds in Northern Switzerland, with females aged 15-30 suspiciously absent from the killed, etc. I need to look up the study again, but the rate of people that died violently during the LBK is estimated at between 7 and 19% - along the Rhine during the late LBK, the rate would probably even be higher. The former figure corresponds to 19th century France (including the Napoleonic Wars), the latter to Germany between 1900 and 1950 (WW I and II). Here goes the demographic advantage of early farmers...
5. Returning to hunting vs. farming in Northern Germany /Denmark: The Steffens report is interesting, but partly based on outdated information. One of the locations, Wolkenwehe near Bad Oldesloe, e.g. has in 2007-2009 been re-excavated, and yielded more than 60% domesticated animals instead of 43.5% as listed in the Steffens report. Another problem is that Steffens excluded cattle and pig bones, as it could not be distinguished whether they originated from wild or domesticated animals. In the meantime, such distinction can be made, at least for cattle vs. Aurochs, by DNA analysis probably also for pigs. If, however, comparison is only made between sheep/goat on one side and deer/ boar on the other side, results aren't going to be very meaningful for the Northern European plain, which is today Europe's dominating milk production region. Note furthermore that there is substantial indication that several locations, including Wolkenwehe, had a well-developed industry of processing animal bones into tools and decorative items. The bones might have arrived at some locations (especially those on the Sjaeland north coast, with bone counts as high as 25,000 over just 100 years) from distant HG communities for further processing. Wolkenwehe, 30 km distant from the coast, e.g. had significant shares of seal bones. The Mesolithic Swifterband culture in the Netherlands seems to have collected deer teeth for trading purposes, while in a Michelsberger Kultur grave in the Rhineland, a belt made out of 160 polished deer teeth was found. Finally, 13% of all bones, with particular concentration in swamp/ wetland areas, were from beaver or river otter. While definitely a HG activity, I (and actually also Steffens) doubt that beaver and otter were primarily hunted for their meat.
6. All available evidence points at a quick and non-violent transition from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. Neoltihisation reached the Mecklenburg coast around 4,100 BC, Sjaelland by 4,000, and Northern Jutland by 3,900. It was carried by immigration from the south-east (Schöningen/ Baalbuerge cultures) and, in the Netherlands and Lower Saxony, from the south-west (Michelsberg culture). While EEF DNA is well traceable in northern FB settlements, the original NHG gene pool (I / UxK) was preserved, mtDNA U even becomes the dominating hg in the late Neolithic Bernburg culture on the Middle Elbe / Saale (pre Corded-Ware!). Pollen diagrams suggest an early phase of intensive slash-and-burn until 3.800 BC. Latest from 3,500 onwards, cereal production intensifies, supported by ox-drawn scratch ploughs. Planted cereals include emmer, barley and wheat. Some archaeologists suppose Northern Germany and Denmark to have developed into an agricultural surplus producer that nourished areas further south, especially the mining and metallurgical complexes around the Harz and in the Siegerland. Note also that in all likelihood most of the Funnelbeakers and associated ceramics were produced on the Middle Elbe / Saale, while Saxony and Bohemia specialised more on linen production and processing (which isn't apparent in the North German archaeological record, so textiles were probably imported) - those people needed external food supply. Schleswig-Holstein has today the highest agricultural productivity in Germany (9 t/ha, France 7.4 t/ha, 2012 data). Why was such a highly productive area not settled earlier by farmers? I guess it has to do with climate change - the submerge of Doggerland affected the Scandinavian climate very favourably (gulf stream), while increasing the flooding risk for the valleys further south that used to be the traditional farming area.
7. Last but not least - what were Funnelbeakers, and that other ceramic innovation of the Baalberge culture on the photo below, used for? I only see two plausible possibilities: Milk, or beer. Actually, apple juice (there is some indication of systematic apple cultivation in FB North Germany) might be a third option. In any case - where you find a Funnelbeaker, there should be more than 95% probability that farmers lived close by.

Thanks for a soundly based post, Nfrank
I think you're interested in Historyvery more deeply than me, and you've a very huge documentation Ishall never have – I've some unred books (not up to date but it canhelp nevertheless) but written in german ! (I 've some sport tounderstand them) -
my pleasure it to do bets with somerough data before check them – all the way, scientific checkingsare the best ! I found a great interest in the data you gavehere, sincerely -
What you wrote here is not allways incontradiction with my poor data nor with my thoughts – OK forStuttgart : all the way we cannot base any global opinion on aso lonesome human being ! Europe is and was vaste and large –and the so called EEG formed an already partially heterogenous polewith surely archaical 'W-mediter' {Y-G2 ???}(some of them therebefore Neolithic) plus some 'SW-asian' {Y-E1b ???}– the todaySardinians are not a monolithical block, only a chosen referencegroup ) -
Guten Abend (Güten owend? Ghoeie'avond ? Goie' jûn?: Noswezh vad deoc'h!)

 

[MOESAN]

I Wonder if Y-I2a1 is not rather a southern HG marker (coastal Adriatic and surroundings) involved or pushed by EEF

 

[FrankN]

@Moesan: Yes, I am interested in history, and this happens to be my home region, where I just stumble over things during weekend excursions (drowned towns on the Baltic Sea coast, Arab coins on display in the Museum in Lübeck, an innocently looking hill in Franconia enclosed by a Celtic wall, etc.), and get curious. Asides, German archaeology has gotten beyond its "let's excavate another Roman village west of the Rhine" focus and starts digging deeper, and they find a lot!
Before I write another long article - a few interesting links (the last one is in German, but you seem to understand a bit of it, and an executive summary is already in my last post):
http://www.academia.edu/2284930/_Wi...erxheim_Sr_isotopes_as_indicators_of_mobility
http://www.anr-mk-projekt.fr/IMG/pdf/EAA2012_programme.pdf
http://www2008.io-warnemuende.de/projects/sincos/archive/sdarticle.pdf
http://www.uni-kiel.de/ufg/bereiche/dateienJMueller/Mueller_aid.pdf

I leave I2a2 issue aside for a moment - we have other threads on that. Another point that you mentioned in a post here some time ago was the spread of megalithic culture. Here, we have two very interesting trends. One is the spread of the "allee couverte" / "Galeriegrab". The phenomenon appears almost simultaneously around 3,600 BC across the Michelsberg culture, but French archaeologists have recently established that it originated in the Paris basin and spread eastward. The principle is also copied in Westphalia - interestingly not in megalithic style, but with wood constructions that are filled with dry stone walls. Classical "allees couvertes" then spread further into southern Lower Saxony, Thuringia and the Elbe-Saale region, but only to a line slightly north of the Harz. Interestingly, together with these graves, the following objects, which may look familiar to you, are found:

Seems there has been a link from Brittany to the Elbe around 3,500 BC (and they probably called in "masters" to get the job done). And, surprisingly, the link wasn't Atlantic/ maritime, but continental.

Then, there is a second trend - the classic Nordic Megalithic, with an apparent epicentre on the Danish islands(see the maps at the end of my last link above). It starts with Kurgan-type burials - wooden grave chambers covered by large earth mounds ("Hünengräber"). Over time, additional wooden grave chambers are added, and the earth mound are elongated, until they reach a length of often more than 100 m. The mound is encircled with large stones, the so-called "Langbetten" (long barrows). Recent research has yielded that the earliest of these structures date to 4,100 BC, i.e. slightly predate the shift from the Mesolithic Ertebolle to the Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture. From 3,650 on, the wooden chambers are replaced by Dolmen, but the overall context (earth mound encircled by long barrows) remains unchanged (i.e. no major population turnover). The appearance of Dolmen is at least contemporary with, possibly slightly predating the "allees couvertes", and the intensification of TRB agriculture, respectively. It is a mass movement: The total number of Dolmen in Northern Germany and Southern Scandinavia is estimated at 50,000 - that's not one per village, but one per farm-house. This points at a population of some 300-400 thousand people. The population density on the Danish isles should have ranged around 10-15 inhabitants / Km², about 50% higher than in the LBK core area during the 6th millennium. [Do I need to come back on Motala HG I2a -probably not.] Undoubtedly, even if a lot of work was done by family & friends outside the agricultural season, specialised "engineers" (and quite a number of them, we are talking at least 100-150 projects per year) must have been available for hire.

Dolmen construction spread gradually southward, though with limited intensity, to converge at the Weser and around the Harz with the "allees couvertes". The map below shows the approximate "border" for Saxony-Anhalt - the green area marks the "Hercynische Gruppe" where "allees couvertes" and Menirs are present. One should note that out of a total of 485 documented megalithic graves, only 15 are of the "Geleriegrab" or related stone cist type.

It all didn't end well: The Hercynian Group, a.k.a Salzmünde culture, for all its linkages to the Michelsberger Culture, was essentially Danubian in character, and had strong links to the Baden culture that had emerged in the old LBK homeland between Vienna and Budapest. [Anybody acquainted with 18th century history will guess what is coming now - cultural ties between the '"Parisian" Michelsberger Culture and the "Vienna-Budapest" Baden culture weren't well developed either, but fortunately, there was a Bavaria-based culture in-between.]. In newly and rapidly settled Brandenburg (one farmhouse every 400m along the smaller and larger rivers!) a phenomenon that has been described as "archaeology-friendly", namely lots of fortified settlements and (non-decaying) weapons in the graves, developed in the 32nd century along a line running north-eastwards from the lower Saale through today's Berlin to the mouth of the Oder. By 3,100 BC, the "Nordic" Bernburg culture violently ends the Salzmünde culture and establishes itself around the Harz and in Thuringia, with influence zones into northern Bavaria and Bohemia. This seems to have implied a substantial population turnover, NHG mtDNA U (xK) becomes the dominating haplogroup in this culture. Further west, along the upper and middle Weser, the Michelsberger Kultur had already before given way to the Wartberg culture, but that appears to have been a peaceful process of cultural rather than demic diffusion.

My question here to you (and others): Has the Nordic Megalithic, as now assumed by many researchers, been an autochthonous development, or has it been promoted from outside? 4,100 BC is a bit early for my taste to relate Nordic Kurgans (Hünengräber) to those in the Pontic Steppes. If there has been a flow of ideas from Britanny, it didn't come overland or along the coast via the Netherlands and Northern Germany, because the expansion pattern of Nordic Dolmen was the other way round. That leaves the possibility of spread via the British Isles - but has there been substantial Dolmen construction prior to 3,650 BC?

 

[MOESAN]

very intyresting and coumented post, NFrank
I feel very poor in front of that: I recall just some complementary observations of scholars (XX°C end)
the first great megaliths in Brittany, dated by different unerelated teams give all of them a period beginning about the 4000 BC (6000 BP) and what is important they think these great structures (like the cairn of Barnenez N-Finistère) were built in a relative short period, and immediatly without a between stage with small ones - they say the mortuary first megaliths decoration art (on stelae) show something in common with the Balkans neolithical stylisation, not with the ancient Neolithic of the Near-East nor with the local Paleolithic one - so something occurred in Occident at these ages, which seems implying dominant numerous enough new people, a social structure which could put a lot of people to work (religion?)
concerning the propagation of Dolmens structures from the Atlantic to the Saale valley across the Bassin Parisien is interesting but could also be confusing: because for anthropologists, a part of the subsequent Seine-Oise-Marne SOM culture population shows (in more brutal) some affinities with the mesolithical Teviec types of future Brittany, themselves close enough to the archaïc element among the Michelsberg late-neolithical population - that said, it proves nothing before more ancient findings: I'm sure this archaïc types were not the promotors of megalithism, and they were rather an "autochtonous" laying of population let in N-W Europe by Mesolothical half sedentarized societies - their affinities don't prove they accompanied the megalithic movement in question -

 

[MOESAN]

My question here to you (and others): Has the Nordic Megalithic, as now assumed by many researchers, been an autochthonous development, or has it been promoted from outside? 4,100 BC is a bit early for my taste to relate Nordic Kurgans (Hünengräber) to those in the Pontic Steppes. If there has been a flow of ideas from Britanny, it didn't come overland or along the coast via the Netherlands and Northern Germany, because the expansion pattern of Nordic Dolmen was the other way round. That leaves the possibility of spread via the British Isles - but has there been substantial Dolmen construction prior to 3,650 BC?

the Long Barrows of Britain had they the same wooden substructures like the Long Barrows of N-Germany/Denmark?: Coon thought there has been demic introgression of the phenotypical mean associated with british Long Barrows (some today traces in Britain, principally in Wales) into S Scandinavia ... I think the structural subgroups of megalithism architecture are born after the first impact (homogenous?)

 

[FrankN]

Some excerpts from a recent conference agenda that may be pertinent to the discussion here:
http://www.lda-lsa.de/fileadmin/pdf/Tagungen/MesoBurials-2013_Abstracts.pdf

Skulls on stakes and skulls in water. Mesolithic mortuary rituals at Kanaljorden, Motala, Sweden 7000 BP
Excavations at Kanaljorden, Motala in the province of Östergötland in Sweden 2oo9–2o13 has unearthed a rare context from the Mesolithic. A small lake has been the locus for complex ritual activities that included the construction of a stone packing at the bottom of the lake. Select human bones – mostly skulls – from a dozen individuals have then been deposited on the stone-packing. Two of the skulls were mounted on wooden stakes still embedded in the cranium. Damage on other skulls indicate that more may have been similarly mounted. The context is 14C-dated to c. 58oo cal. BC. Ongoing laboratory analysis (aDNA, isotopes etc.) give insight into the relationship of the interred individuals.

Do we have the DNA of HGs, or of their prey?

New data on the Donkalnis and Spiginas (West Lithuania) Mesolithic cemeteries
Two archaeological complexes were discovered and examined at two sites by Lake Biržulis, namely the Mesolithic camp sites on the promontories of the lake peninsula (Spigino Ragas and Kalniškiai) and cemeteries and funeral feast and sacrifice pits on lake islands next to the camps (Donkalnis and Spiginas). Mesolithic remains were found by accident during land improvement works near the small Rešketa River in 193o–34.
The calibrated grave dates are as follows:
Spiginas Grave 1. A severely disturbed grave, 4o5o–35oo BC (dated by finds to 55oo BC);
Spiginas Grave 2. 666o–65oo BC;
Spiginas Grave 3. 64oo–624o BC;
Donkalnis Grave 2. 6377–6221 BC;
Donkalnis Grave 3. 47o6–4554 BC (dated later because of bone-strengthening material);
Donkalnis Grave 4. 598o–579o BC.
Although research into the diet of the people buried here shows that freshwater fish dominated their intake of food, their grave goods (wild animal teeth) show that hunting was still an important economic activity
Genetic research also shows that U4 and U5 genes are typical of Mesolithic graves from Biržulis but they are no longer typical of late Neolithic inhabitants. The move to agriculture in Central Europe and Western Lithuania alike was accompanied by influx of genes from other regions.

The Mesolithic burials of northeastern Germany – synopsis and new aspects
In contrast to the 13 localities with 22 Mesolithic graves and 26 buried individuals, in northeastern Germany, comprising about 5o ooo square kilometers, are known more than 2ooo Mesolithic settlement sites resp. places with Mesolithic flint artifacts, representing one site for about 25 square kilometer. In comparing the number of nown buried 26 individuals in northeastern Germany compared with estimated around 2oo ooo living individuals of the about 15o human generations existing in the 3ooo years of the Atlantic times from around 7ooo calBC to around 4ooo calBC, the number of the 26 buried individuals is clearly extremely low. All this we have to take into account in statements on the anthropological, genetical, health, diet etc. statuses of Mesolithic man, derived from the poor basis of the few existing human skeletons / bones as the source materials.

There is a lot more interesting stuff, covering almost all of Europe (except the British isles), plus the USA, Canada and Australia. Quite some examples of what you, MOESAN, called the "Archaic element", but also new evidence of sophisticated childcare by HGs.

 

[sparkey]

Fire Haired and Sile have recently pointed out to me Genetiker's recent Y-DNA analysis of Motala 2 and Motala 6, so I thought I'd make a combined table of Y-DNA haplogroups for ancient Swedish samples, to their most precise call:

Stora Förvar 11	F xG,H,J,L,P L121- L178- L37- (so I2a1*, I2a1a, I2a1c, I2c, F2, or some other possibilities)
Motala 2	I2c L597+
Motala 3	I2 L68+ L181- L417- (so I2*, I2a*, I2a1, or I2c)
Motala 6	I L772+ L37- (so I*, I1, I2*, I2a*, I2a1, I2b, or I2c)
Motala 9	I P38+ P40- (so I* or I2)
Motala 12	I2a1b L178+ M359.2- L621- (so I2a1b* or I2a1b2)
Ajvide 52	I2a2a1 CTS616+
Ajvide 58	I2a1 P37.2+ L158- M423- L880- L1294- (so I2a1* or I2a1c)
Ajvide 70	F2 M427+
Ire 8	F xG,H,L,P S66- L622- (so I2a1, I2c, F2, or some other possibilities)
Gökhem 4	I2 M438+ L159.1- L622- (so I2*, I2a*, I2a1*, I2a1b, I2a1c, I2a1d, I2a1e, I2a2*, I2a2b, I2b, or I2c)

When the results first started coming in, I thought that Loschbour-type I2a1b* would be dominant, since that's what we saw on Motala 12 as well, but that doesn't seem to be holding up. The total number of I2a1b*'s in that group could at most be 6 out of 11, and could be as low as just 1. In comparison, there could be anywhere from 1 to 7 I2c's in that group.

 

[MOESAN]

have you red this (it's from Dienekes but Eurogenes and, I think, the Blog de Bernard Secher speak of it too)
problemes: the datations for a period becoming agitated!


[h=2]October 21, 2014[/h][h=3]Ancient DNA from prehistoric inhabitants of Hungary[/h]

A very interesting new article on Europe describes new data from ancient Hungary from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. It is open access, so go ahead and read it. I will update this entry with some comments after I read the paper myself.

UPDATE I (The petrous bone):
The authors write:

The endogenous DNA yields from the petrous samples exceeded those from the teeth by 4- to 16-fold and those from other bones up to 183-fold. Thus, while other skeletal elements yielded human, non-clonal DNA contents ranging from 0.3 to 20.7%, the levels for petrous bones ranged from 37.4 to 85.4% (Fig. 1).​

This seems like a very exciting technical breakthrough that will increase DNA yields in future studies.

​

UPDATE II (PCA):
The Neolithic Hungarians are close to Sardinians (this has been replicated in study after study, so it's no longer a surprise when you find Neolithic Europeans that look like Sardinians).

What is surprising is that one KO1 Neolithic European is with the hunter-gatherers (top of the plot). At some level you would expect to find some hunter-gatherers in the earliest Neolithic communities in Europe as Europe wasn't empty land when the early farmers showed up. And KO1 appears one of those guys, "caught in the act" of first contact between the two groups.

The two Bronze Age samples are more like modern continental Europeans but not exactly like modern Hungarians. The Iron Age sample is in the no-man's land between Europe and the Caucasus and his "Asian" Y chromosome and mtDNA seems to agree that this is no ordinary European.

​

UPDATE III (How they looked):
I really like the visualization of hair and eye color predictions of the last two columns of the table on the right. It seems that the ancient Hungarians had mainly brown hair with more variability after 5,000 years ago. They mostly had brown eyes except three individuals.

An interesting thing is that NE7 who seems to have light hair and blue eyes is just like other Sardinian-like farmers of the Neolithic and also has the mtDNA haplogroup N1a1a1a that is ultra-typical for Neolithic people from Europe. So this is a warning not to conflate appearance with ancestry.

UPDATE IV (Y chromosomes):
As always, the supplement has many of the interesting details. Two Neolithic males were C6 which is the same "weird" haplogroup that La Brana hunter-gatherer from Spain had. Two other ones were I2a which is what Loschbour and Swedish hunter-gatherers had. Strangely, no Neolithic males had G which was found before in many Neolithic Europeans.

A new finding is that the Bronze Age individual BR2 belonged to haplogroup J2a1. I think this is the first time this has been found in ancient DNA and it falsifies the Phoenician sea-faring theory of the dispersal of this lineage.

Finally, the Iron Age Hungarian belonged to haplogroup N. I believe this was found in ancient Magyars from Hungary before, but apparently it existed there long before them.

Nature Communications 5, Article number: 5257 doi:10.1038/ncomms6257

Genome flux and stasis in a five millennium transect of European prehistory

Cristina Gamba et al.

The Great Hungarian Plain was a crossroads of cultural transformations that have shaped European prehistory. Here we analyse a 5,000-year transect of human genomes, sampled from petrous bones giving consistently excellent endogenous DNA yields, from 13 Hungarian Neolithic, Copper, Bronze and Iron Age burials including two to high (~22 × ) and seven to ~1 × coverage, to investigate the impact of these on Europe’s genetic landscape. These data suggest genomic shifts with the advent of the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, with interleaved periods of genome stability. The earliest Neolithic context genome shows a European hunter-gatherer genetic signature and a restricted ancestral population size, suggesting direct contact between cultures after the arrival of the first farmers into Europe. The latest, Iron Age, sample reveals an eastern genomic influence concordant with introduced Steppe burial rites. We observe transition towards lighter pigmentation and surprisingly, no Neolithic presence of lactase persistence.

 

[LeBrok]

have you red this (it's from Dienekes but Eurogenes and, I think, the Blog de Bernard Secher speak of it too)
problemes: the datations for a period becoming agitated!

Yes. We are indulging in a great discussion about this latest paper here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-Ancient-DNA-from-Hungary-Christine-Gamba-et-al

A new finding is that the Bronze Age individual BR2 belonged to haplogroup J2a1. I think this is the first time this has been found in ancient DNA and it falsifies the Phoenician sea-faring theory of the dispersal of this lineage.

and by Roman Empire and Christianity. I wonder if RHAS will show up soon to update his thread?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...tianity-and-Viticulture?highlight=viticulture

In my eyes J2 is a good candidate for copper age expansion/revolution, but maybe I'm pushing it too much back?

 

[MOESAN]

yes. We are indulging in a great discussion about this latest paper here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/30570-ancient-dna-from-hungary-christine-gamba-et-al

and by roman empire and christianity. I wonder if rhas will show up soon to update his thread?
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...tianity-and-viticulture?highlight=viticulture

in my eyes j2 is a good candidate for copper age expansion/revolution, but maybe i'm pushing it too much back?

yes i saw this very thread today!!! I was surprised nobody had seen that before and i have not time to read all the new posts or threads
thanks