Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 74

Thread: European mtDNA Signature Established in the Mid Neolithic

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,839
    Points
    52,092
    Level
    70
    Points: 52,092, Level: 70
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 458
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by polako View Post
    I never claimed there was a major turnover of mtDNA 6,000 years ago. You did and the evidence is in the posts above.



    No, the authors very obviously state that the major portion of European mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established by the middle Neolithic, around 6,000 years ago. This is stated several times in the posts above, including your own.

    And no, there was no "other wave" of mtDNA H into Central Europe during the Bronze Age. The phylogeography of the full mtDNA sequences studied in the paper show that Neolithic farmers and Bell Beakers from the Atlantic facade can explain almost all of the mtDNA H in Europe (the rest can be explained by Corded Ware and other expansions from the east which carried Eastern European-specific mtDNA H subclades).

    So what most likely happened was that the Neolithic and Bell Beaker-derived populations, sitting in Western and Central Europe, where population densities were relatively high and could get much higher than in Eastern Europe, experienced large population growth during the metal ages, thereby pushing up the frequencies of mtDNA H and the Atlantic-derived subclades of mtDNA H even further.



    Yes, it's stated in the paper including in the abstract. Here's that quote again.
    Your first two statements contradict one another. As for a statement about mtDNA becoming dominant 6000 years ago, I'll explain what's wrong with the statement by using a simple example, because that seems to be necessary if I want you to understand. If researchers found and presented a lot of data showing that donkeys can't fly, but stated in their paper and in their abstract that their evidence shows that donkeys can fly, that would not be proof, it would be an inaccurate statement.

  2. #27
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Wilhelm View Post
    There is also a Mesolithic Russian with mtDNA H.
    But it's only around 7,000 years old and could be explained by farmer admixture unlike 12,000 year old R0 from Spain.

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    But it's only around 7,000 years old and could be explained by farmer admixture unlike 12,000 year old R0 from Spain.
    What are you trying to say?.............that mtDna H advanced along the afrcan coast into iberia before moving into Europe via Anatolia!
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  4. #29
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    What are you trying to say?.............that mtDna H advanced along the afrcan coast into iberia before moving into Europe via Anatolia!
    Farmers had already established themselves in areas where they could have had contact with the hunter gatherers of Uznyi Oleni Ostrov. The east Asian C1 and in later samples Z1a found there are from east Asia, and so why can't the H be from European farmers? Besides it is only one isolated H, in no way is it evidence most H in modern Europe is from European hunter gatherers. It is ridiculous that people focus so much on H when European mtDNA is in subject, H has around 100 basal clades, it was total luck that the diverse and old H lineage became 40% in almost all of Europe.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Farmers had already established themselves in areas where they could have had contact with the hunter gatherers of Uznyi Oleni Ostrov. The east Asian C1 and in later samples Z1a found there are from east Asia, and so why can't the H be from European farmers? Besides it is only one isolated H, in no way is it evidence most H in modern Europe is from European hunter gatherers. It is ridiculous that people focus so much on H when European mtDNA is in subject, H has around 100 basal clades, it was total luck that the diverse and old H lineage became 40% in almost all of Europe.
    wasn't mtDna U and its sister K earlier than H in Europe ..............maybe even T2

  6. #31
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    wasn't mtDna U and its sister K earlier than H in Europe ..............maybe even T2
    U and K are not sister clades, K is another name for U8b2. K was probably not in Europe or at least most of it before the Neolithic. There is an around 30,000 year old U8 sample from the Czech Republic but it's specifically U8c, so not K.

  7. #32
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    26-06-13
    Posts
    44
    Points
    2,821
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,821, Level: 15
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 229
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Your first two statements contradict one another. As for a statement about mtDNA becoming dominant 6000 years ago, I'll explain what's wrong with the statement by using a simple example, because that seems to be necessary if I want you to understand. If researchers found and presented a lot of data showing that donkeys can't fly, but stated in their paper and in their abstract that their evidence shows that donkeys can fly, that would not be proof, it would be an inaccurate statement.
    The fact that most of the modern mtDNA H diversity and distribution was established in Europe by the middle Neolithic doesn't contradict the fact that there was no mtDNA turnover in Europe 6,000 years ago.

    That's because this diversity and distribution was established via gradual migrations over thousands of years as well as genetic drift.

    Quit embarrassing yourself and move on while you're not too far behind.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    26-06-13
    Posts
    44
    Points
    2,821
    Level
    15
    Points: 2,821, Level: 15
    Level completed: 24%, Points required for next Level: 229
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Poland



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Although I agree that most major mtDNA H subclades were already present in Europe during the mid Neolithic, I can't agree with this paper that the modern distribution of H subclades was already established back then. As you said, the Corded Ware (+ the Unetice and all subsequent IE cultures) redistributed eastern H subclades across most of Europe, and by doing so changing substantially the mtDNA landscape and the frequencies of H subclades.
    They couldn't have changed the character of mtDNA H across Europe too much, because they didn't carry much mtDNA H. Their contribution is better seen in the rising levels of U4, U5, U2, and I in much of Europe after the Neolithic.

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.

    The European hunter gatherer R0 samples could somehow be false, maybe the dates(Neolithic not Mesolithic) are off, who knows. They don't make any sense(especially in Mesolithic Portugal) and at the time of their discovery the mainstream theory was that the first Europeans were full of mtDNA H, and prove that they were not would have been crushing for many people.
    I have been thinking about that too. The most surprising thing is that Stuttgart is supposedly 25%-30% WHG but there is hardly any mtDNA U5 or U4 in Lineband Beaker settlements found. That itself could mean - I am merely speculating - that they picked it up in the south east of Europa and that Hunter-Gatherers there had different mtDNA.

    We mostly have data of Nothern and north-western WHG's which could be somehow "cherry picking" for U5. Mesolithich HG's are supposed to be the same people as the late Paleolithic (Correct me if I'm wrong) and in the late Paleolithic population was extremely thin. So the omnipresence of U5 in the northern part of WHG's might be due to some sort of founder effect, especially since the area was repopulated only after the LGM. Iberian HG's had Y-DNA had C1 too, another hint that haplogroups absent from WHG in the north and north-west could have been present in the south. Also, apparently the mesolithic finds in Greece point to more mtDNA than just U5. I thought it was X1.

  10. #35
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    @Aberdeen & Polako

    Quote Originally Posted by polako View Post
    Quit embarrassing yourself and move on while you're not too far behind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Were you drunk when you wrote that?
    Gentlemen. If you left out remarks such as cited yours would actually look like an interesting discussion. I understand how sometimes irkiness enters the discussion but we all should put effort in bending the discussion back to civilized.

    Mind you, not to say you aren't civilized gentlemen.

  11. #36
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    @Aberdeen & Polako

    Gentlemen. If you left out remarks such as cited yours would actually look like an interesting discussion. I understand how sometimes irkiness enters the discussion but we all should put effort in bending the discussion back to civilized.

    Mind you, not to say you aren't civilized gentlemen.
    I second that.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  12. #37
    Elite member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Fire Haired14's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-04-14
    Posts
    2,194
    Points
    28,146
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,146, Level: 51
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 504
    Overall activity: 31.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b DF27*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2b1

    Country: USA - Illinois



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    etrdugiuhuohoho

  13. #38
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,689
    Points
    682,168
    Level
    100
    Points: 682,168, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by polako View Post
    They couldn't have changed the character of mtDNA H across Europe too much, because they didn't carry much mtDNA H. Their contribution is better seen in the rising levels of U4, U5, U2, and I in much of Europe after the Neolithic.
    It is true that the Bronze Age steppe people carried less mtDNA H than the European average, but based on the few hundreds ancient samples from the Yamna, Corded Ware, Catacomb and Unetice cultures, they still had a significant 25% of h H. Typical H subclades of Bronze Age steppe people include H1b, H1c, H2a1, H4a1, H5a, H6, H10 and H11.
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  14. #39
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    @Fire Haired

    I have also been suprised that southern Scandinavia has such high WHG affinity where it has low U5/U4 rates compared to northern Scandinavia. Yet la Brana shows great affinity to the Scandinavians. Did they explicitly mean non-southern Swedes by that? In that case it is surprising that current day Swedes aren't similar to early Funnel beaker farmers but show larger affinity to WHG.

    The mismatch between mtDNA ancestry and autosomal is quite strange.

    I have a hunch that while LBK might be clearly a colonisation of EEF (20% WHG) that managed to stay more or less separate for a thousand of years from surrounding WHG's - as some studies suggest - the cultures that followed were more hybrids. And even then there might be considerable differences in WHG ancestry between different sub-cultures. Rosen culture, Baalberg culture, they might have collected a number of WHG's when colonizing new area's whereas the dutch Swifterband culture might be a slow adaptation of WHG's to husbandry. So in the end we end up with villages across Europa with each different but substantial autosomal WHG ancestry.

    Farmer villages in ancient times may have been far more isolated than today. After initial colonization farmer communities may have become quite closed communities, as they are until this day. Even recently one wouldn't marry all that easy into closed communities. In closed communities, due to founder effect en genetic drift, minority haplogroups have a slightly higher chance of disappearing completely so after a while U5 might simply disappear, while autosomically these communities might have considerable WHG ancestry.

    It's just a thought, mind you.

  15. #40
    Elite member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    21-01-14
    Posts
    537
    Points
    3,837
    Level
    17
    Points: 3,837, Level: 17
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 4.0%


    Country: UK - Wales



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    All we can say about the "H" from Mesolithic Portugal and Magdalenian Spain is that they without almost any doubt had R0 because all of them except the reported H6 had G73A. The testing was so primitive there is no way to know for sure what type of R0 they had(there are many possibilities). There is also for sure 24,000 year old R0 from Gravettian Italy because it had both R0's mutations.

    I don't understand how La brana-1 could be 100% the same thing as northwest European hunter gatherers if hunter gatherers from his area had ancestry(maternal lineage R0) the northwest European hunter gatherers lacked. If south European hunter gatherers during the LGM had a high amount of R0 and their descendants resettled northern Europe, then why did northern hunter gatherers completely lack R0? R0 in Italy 24,000 years ago is explainable but R0 in Portugal during the end of the Mesolithic is not. It is an interesting idea and possible but unlikely.
    I think the HGs during the LGM are likely to have been split into two related but separate populations mirroring two ecosystems: a southern and coastal population including southern Europe and around the Atlantic coast and a mammoth steppe population extending from northern France to Siberia. If so the resettlement of northern Europe after the end of LGM might easily have been mostly from the mammoth steppe population as they were closer with some distinctive input from the more coastal population along the Atlantic coast.

    edit: actually three might make more sense, a southern refuge population, a coastal maritime population up the Atlantic coast (thinking of Eskimo as an example of a coastal population living in a cold environment then possibly quite far north along the Atlantic coast) and thirdly a mammoth steppe population).

  16. #41
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    4 out of 4 members found this post helpful.
    There can’t be any rational discussion of the issues raised by Brotherton et al, or any advancement in our knowledge of this period when statements are made concerning it that are totally at odds with a plain reading of the text.


    Once again, this is what they say in the abstract: Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC).


    They are thus claiming that already by 4,000 BC, the major part of the current diversity and distribution of H had already been established, and that therefore Bell Beaker, and Corded Ware, and Unetice) did not create the general pattern of diversity and distribution of mtDNA “H” we see in modern populations. It was already in place, or so they claim.


    In the body of the paper they then go on to state this, “The combined set of analyses (PCA, Procrustes and Ward clustering) revealed that Mittelelbe-Saale’s earliest farmers (LBK; n=9) cluster with present-day Caucasus, Near Eastern, and Anatolian populations, as previously noted7. In contrast, individuals from the successor series of regional post-LBK (and Mid Neolithic) Rössen, Schöningen, Baalberge, and Salzmünde cultures (ca. 4625-3025 BC, MNE; n=10) cluster with present-day Central European populations (Figure 2


    They further state that ,” ENE (Early Neolithic) mt genomes are generally either rare today19 or have not yet been observed in present-day populations, possibly due to subsequent extinction of these lineages” and that “This suggests that individuals from the Early Neolithic made a marginal contribution to Late Neolithic and present day hg H diversity. Although the relatively small sample numbers from each time period limit detailed analyses of the causes of the distribution shifts, we interpret this phylogenetic pattern as a genetic discontinuity between Early and subsequent Neolithic cultures in Europe, potentially mirroring genetic structure in Neolithic European populations.”


    Now, such a change could be caused by either migrations or drift. The authors specifically state that drift was not the cause:

    “Genetic drift could also have played a role in generating discrepant hg distributions over time and space. However, if drift was the sole cause we would expect a random distribution across all sub-hgs rather than a clear distinction between ENE and MNE/LNE/Bronze Age mt genomes.”

    That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area. I do have a problem with an analysis that leaves that as the only explanation but doesn’t explicitly address the issue. Nor, for that matter, do I think their argument against drift as an explanation is all that convincing. If the sample sizes are too small from each period to figure out how the diversity developed, then why aren't they too small to so definitively rule out drift as one of the factors.


    Apologies to Aberdeen for speaking for him, but it seems to me that this must be the same logical trail he followed, a trail which led him to conclude that, “Here's an article published by Nature Communications about a study that suggests Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago, in the mid Neolithic, by people of an unknown origin who largely replaced the early Neolithic farmers, for reasons that aren't yet clear.”

    The authors are clearly proposing that some genetic transition did indeed take place between the LBK or early Neolithic and the mid-Neolithic cultures before the arrival of Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice. Now, this may not be supported by the data, it may indeed not be the best explanation of what actually happened in Europe, but it is unambiguously what they did say.


    They are most definitely not saying that “ Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic" to quote a post by Polako. Given the text of the main paper quoted above, it's also incorrect to maintain that the authors propose that “The descendants of early Neolithic farmers weren't replaced about 6000 years ago but were the ones who largely established Europe's modern mtDNA gene pool at this time." Clearly they are saying that there were indeed changes between the arrival of the first farmers and the Middle Neolithic of 6000 years ago. (4000 BC)


    One can disagree with the conclusions of Brotherton et al, but one can’t re-write them; that just leads to frustration, confusion among readers, and further bad conclusions.


    In addition to all of the above problems with this paper, I agree with Aberdeen that the authors are making a huge error in taking results from one area in Germany, and very small sample sizes for each specific time period, and presuming to then extrapolate from that to make broad generalizations about the peopling of Europe.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  17. #42
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post

    That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area.
    We can see that with farmers/middle eastern Y-dna pattern too. They don't mirror each other much and not at all in some cases. Suggesting separate entrances into Europe. In other words, few waves of farmers during Neolithic.

  18. #43
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience Points
    Aberdeen's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-11-13
    Posts
    1,839
    Points
    52,092
    Level
    70
    Points: 52,092, Level: 70
    Level completed: 68%, Points required for next Level: 458
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H4

    Ethnic group
    Scottish, English and German
    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    There can’t be any rational discussion of the issues raised by Brotherton et al, or any advancement in our knowledge of this period when statements are made concerning it that are totally at odds with a plain reading of the text.


    Once again, this is what they say in the abstract: Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H were largely established by the Mid Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC).


    They are thus claiming that already by 4,000 BC, the major part of the current diversity and distribution of H had already been established, and that therefore Bell Beaker, and Corded Ware, and Unetice) did not create the general pattern of diversity and distribution of mtDNA “H” we see in modern populations. It was already in place, or so they claim.


    In the body of the paper they then go on to state this, “The combined set of analyses (PCA, Procrustes and Ward clustering) revealed that Mittelelbe-Saale’s earliest farmers (LBK; n=9) cluster with present-day Caucasus, Near Eastern, and Anatolian populations, as previously noted7. In contrast, individuals from the successor series of regional post-LBK (and Mid Neolithic) Rössen, Schöningen, Baalberge, and Salzmünde cultures (ca. 4625-3025 BC, MNE; n=10) cluster with present-day Central European populations (Figure 2


    They further state that ,” ENE (Early Neolithic) mt genomes are generally either rare today19 or have not yet been observed in present-day populations, possibly due to subsequent extinction of these lineages” and that “This suggests that individuals from the Early Neolithic made a marginal contribution to Late Neolithic and present day hg H diversity. Although the relatively small sample numbers from each time period limit detailed analyses of the causes of the distribution shifts, we interpret this phylogenetic pattern as a genetic discontinuity between Early and subsequent Neolithic cultures in Europe, potentially mirroring genetic structure in Neolithic European populations.”


    Now, such a change could be caused by either migrations or drift. The authors specifically state that drift was not the cause:

    “Genetic drift could also have played a role in generating discrepant hg distributions over time and space. However, if drift was the sole cause we would expect a random distribution across all sub-hgs rather than a clear distinction between ENE and MNE/LNE/Bronze Age mt genomes.”

    That leaves migration of peoples bearing other subclades of “H” as the explanation, but they never state that explicitly and so they obviously don’t explain where and when these people arrived in the area. Now, I personally have no problem speculating that there was continuous gene flow during the Neolithic or perhaps a few pulses of gene flow which would bring diversity to the area. I do have a problem with an analysis that leaves that as the only explanation but doesn’t explicitly address the issue. Nor, for that matter, do I think their argument against drift as an explanation is all that convincing. If the sample sizes are too small from each period to figure out how the diversity developed, then why aren't they too small to so definitively rule out drift as one of the factors.


    Apologies to Aberdeen for speaking for him, but it seems to me that this must be the same logical trail he followed, a trail which led him to conclude that, “Here's an article published by Nature Communications about a study that suggests Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago, in the mid Neolithic, by people of an unknown origin who largely replaced the early Neolithic farmers, for reasons that aren't yet clear.”

    The authors are clearly proposing that some genetic transition did indeed take place between the LBK or early Neolithic and the mid-Neolithic cultures before the arrival of Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, or Unetice. Now, this may not be supported by the data, it may indeed not be the best explanation of what actually happened in Europe, but it is unambiguously what they did say.


    They are most definitely not saying that “ Europe's modern mtDNA signature was largely established about 6000 years ago as a result of migrations into Europe during the early Neolithic" to quote a post by Polako. Given the text of the main paper quoted above, it's also incorrect to maintain that the authors propose that “The descendants of early Neolithic farmers weren't replaced about 6000 years ago but were the ones who largely established Europe's modern mtDNA gene pool at this time." Clearly they are saying that there were indeed changes between the arrival of the first farmers and the Middle Neolithic of 6000 years ago. (4000 BC)


    One can disagree with the conclusions of Brotherton et al, but one can’t re-write them; that just leads to frustration, confusion among readers, and further bad conclusions.


    In addition to all of the above problems with this paper, I agree with Aberdeen that the authors are making a huge error in taking results from one area in Germany, and very small sample sizes for each specific time period, and presuming to then extrapolate from that to make broad generalizations about the peopling of Europe.
    Thank you for that excellent summary of the situation, Angela. This is definitely one of those papers where the facts don't fit the conclusions. The authors state that "Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of hg H were largely established by the Mid-Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC)." However, that simply isn't the case, as is noted in the paper as well as in various other sources. 6000 years ago, H was less common than it later became, and those examples of H that have been found from 4000 BC and earlier show a substantially different prevalence of subclades than what developed later. And we seem to agree that there's a problem with trying to use the results from one locale as a proxy for all of Europe, since the results in that locale are not in fact representative of Europe. There's a lot wrong with this paper, although I don't have time at the moment to address it all in detail. I just wish I had been able to see the paper before I started this thread on the basis of curiosity about the abstract, since I really don't think this paper should be taken too seriously.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,120
    Points
    29,699
    Level
    52
    Points: 29,699, Level: 52
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 51
    Overall activity: 37.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post

    Certainly. However, history shows that few men can father children at a lot of women. The other way around does not seem plausible. So I had the impression that mtDNA should follow autosomical DNA more than Y-DNA.
    What I call " dynastic ydna". Men who had a concubine due to their status in society ...................something we still saw in history as late as the 19th century in Zulu culture


    If I am right the Baltic states never had significant neolithic immigration that kickstarted the neolithicum there. However, Baltics still do have significant EEF. They also have significant ANE and speak a Indo-European language. This might serve as evidence that there possibly the expanding Indo-Europeans carried an lot of EEF as well as WHG. Allthough possibly the EEF the Baltics show affinity to might be the exact bit in Stuttgart that was derived from WHG. Lazardis discusses that, and suggests a 20% WHG admixture.
    The amber trade/migration trail and the jutland to Genoa migration/trade trail where already in action by the late-neolithic period

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered
    FrankN's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-14
    Location
    Hamburg
    Posts
    246
    Points
    4,171
    Level
    18
    Points: 4,171, Level: 18
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 79
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    Low Saxon
    Country: Germany - Schleswig-Holstein



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    I need a few more looks at the paper itself to comment on its content, but it seems to me that some posters here have problems to place it into the correct historical setting:
    Let's start with the Elbe-Saale region that has been analysed in the paper. Of course it is only one Central European region, and as such not necessarily representative of other regions. However, if there is a single region that captures most of Central European population dynamics, it is exactly that area along the Middle Elbe and Saale:
    1. Central part of the LBK EEF expansion during the early Neolithic from the Lower Danube north-westwards (LBK arrived at the Middle Elbe a couple of centuries before it reached the middle and lower Rhine);
    2. Part of the area where lactase persistency developed first. Recent genetic research puts the origin somewhere into Western Hungary, i.e. the starting point of the LBK expansion, in the second half of the 5th millennium BC. Lactase persistency seems to have spread strongest along the central LBK expansion path - through Moravia, Bohemia and along the Upper Elbe - and less intensively / slower along the western path (Upper Danube / Rhine). The Middle Elbe/ Saale region is still today part of the area where lactase persistency is highest within Europe;
    3. Part (actually the western edge) of the first stage of IE expansion into Central Europe, marked by the Globular Amphora Culture, and the place where quite a number of linguists assume Proto-Germanic to have been formed;
    4. Eastern border of the Bell Beaker expansion out of Iberia, and the only region where co-existence of Bell Beakers and (IE- influenced) Global Amphora / Corded Ware people is archeologically documented;
    5. Convergence zone of (Proto-Celtic) Urnfield & Hallstatt cultures, and (Proto-Germanic) Jastorf culture;
    6. Western border of the Slavic expansion during the early middle ages.

    LBK EEFs settled on the loess plains along the major rivers (Danube, Morava, Elbe, Vltava, Oder, Rhine, Main, etc.). Archaeological research in the Rhine-Main area around today's Frankfurt, and by Czech archaeologists along the Upper Elbe and around Prague shows that the LBK heartland was quite densely populated. The mountain ranges between the main rivers, however, were left to HGs. This may, especially when looking at older maps, create the impression of isolated settlements. But in fact, as recent excavations have shown, the settlement pattern included larger "towns" every 50-60 km, and smaller settlements as well as individual "farms" in-between and reaching into secondary valleys. Not a pattern that necessarily promotes genetic isolation and drift.
    Below is a recently published map by the Archeological Service of Saxony Anhalt, which indicates all Unetice sites (2,700 - 2,100 BC) that have been identified/ documented to date. The indicated settlement density is actually higher than today (though many of the places may not have been settled continuously, but only for some 3-5 generations before the soils were exploited and settlers moved on to a nearby place).


    Entrance of EEF into HG areas has obviously lead to conflicts, in particular as LBK farming seems to have been strongly based on cattle herding, with field crops (grain, linen) only playing a secondary (but nevertheless important) role. What is more tempting to hunters than large herds of well-fed cattle? However, aside from the "Australian Aborigines" / "Native Americans" way to "solve" such conflicts, there is another possibility: Farming and cattle-herding communities along the Niger in West Africa employ Saharans (Tuareg) for their salt supply. Salt trade, while it surely existed already during the Neolithic, is difficult to trace archeologically. But we have ample evidence of medium-distance flint and tool trade. One well documented case is the flint mines near Kehlheim in Upper Bavaria, which supplied their flint as far as Lake Constance and the Middle Rhine to the West, and Dresden, Prague and Linz to the (south-)east. The "flint road" from Kehlheim to Pilsen (from where it continued to Prague) is archeologically well documented from a series of camps in the Bavarian Forest where evidence of small-scale stone processing has been found. The area is still scarcely populated today, and, with one exception (near the town of Cham), no traces of Neolitihic agriculture have been found along the "flint road". As such, it is assumed that traders, following the rivers and creeks, just used their spare time on the evening campfire to get rid of a bit of weight by doing some stone processing. And I am pretty sure that these traders didn't carry sandwiches with them, but hunted (or, more likely, fished) for their food along the way. In other words - some LBK EEF communities found a way to economically integrate HGs from the periphery into their economy, just as Sahel farmers have done with the Tuareg. I furthermore assume that most (all?) of the flint miners and processors were originally HGs - they probably were already regularly (outside hunting season) visiting such mines and preparing replacement spear and arrow heads before farming created additional demand for flint tools. EEFs marrying women from HG communities may have helped to promote such, more peaceful ways of coexistence, and could have become quite frequent once regular trade connections were established.

    I am not aware of genetic studies of LBK graves. However, later graves from the extended Middle Elbe / Saale region (Eulau, Lichtenstein cave) clearly indicate a patrilocal culture, whereby women move towards the husband's residence. In both cases, strontium analyses yielded that the adult women were born at least 60 km away from their burial place. As such, a mtDNA "travelling speed" of 200-250 km/ century across Central Europe is well possible even in the absence of mass migrations.

  21. #46
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassVeteran5000 Experience Points
    John Doe's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-06-14
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    600
    Points
    5,816
    Level
    22
    Points: 5,816, Level: 22
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 234
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    E-PF1975
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a9

    Ethnic group
    Ashkenazi Jewish
    Country: Australia



    Haplogroup U was present in Europe before the Neolithic, is it possible that some carriers of U migrated to Western Asia where K, the subclade of U originated, and then some West Asian carriers of K (such as Jews) migrated into Europe?

  22. #47
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    @FrankN

    The genetic history of pigs is quite an interesting one. It shows that early LBK settlers took their own pigs with them, as the earliest remains of pigs show affinity with Anatolian wild boar. There are a number of cultures, if I understand correctly that are considered surviving hunter-gatherers, one of them being the Ertebolla culture, that started to keep pigs in their villages. The remains of the oldest pigs found at Ertebolla sites also show affinity with Anatolian wild boar. That makes it very clear that trade between LBK and HG's existed.

    http://archaeology.about.com/od/dome...ns/qt/pigs.htm
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/13...comms3348.html

    (The latter of the two links also states that Ertebolla and LBK lived alongside each other but apart from each other for almost thousand years.)

    Strangely enough remains of more recent neolithic pigs shows them to be descendant from local wild boar.

    https://www.academia.edu/1949053/Gen..._domestication

    The same Near Easternhaplotype was also identified in four specimensfrom the 8th millennium Linear Bandkeramik (LBK) site of Eilsleben in northern Germany,and in two samples from the mid Neolithic(very early 6th millennium Chasséen culture)site of Bercy in the Paris Basin. At Bercy,mtDNA sequences of European origin werealso extracted from archaeological specimensidentified by zooarchaeological criteria asdomestic swine, making it the earliest sitewhere both Near Eastern and Europeandomestic swine have been identified together.
    EDIT: One more link about pigs genetic history:

    http://geknitics.com/2007/09/ancient...ic-transition/

    It appears that domesticated swine came into Europe with Neolithic farmers. Interestingly, the archaeological sequences suggest that these Near Eastern lineages were replaced by indigenous wild boar which were quickly domesticated.
    Last edited by epoch; 06-07-14 at 12:01. Reason: elaborated, put in context, added one link.

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,824
    Points
    249,202
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,202, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Thank you for that excellent summary of the situation, Angela. This is definitely one of those papers where the facts don't fit the conclusions. The authors state that "Our results reveal that the current diversity and distribution of hg H were largely established by the Mid-Neolithic (~4000 BC), but with substantial genetic contributions from subsequent pan-European cultures such as the Bell Beakers expanding out of Iberia in the Late Neolithic (~2800 BC)." However, that simply isn't the case, as is noted in the paper as well as in various other sources. 6000 years ago, H was less common than it later became, and those examples of H that have been found from 4000 BC and earlier show a substantially different prevalence of subclades than what developed later. And we seem to agree that there's a problem with trying to use the results from one locale as a proxy for all of Europe, since the results in that locale are not in fact representative of Europe. There's a lot wrong with this paper, although I don't have time at the moment to address it all in detail. I just wish I had been able to see the paper before I started this thread on the basis of curiosity about the abstract, since I really don't think this paper should be taken too seriously.
    Thanks for the kind words, Aberdeen. I just thought that before even getting to the merits of the conclusions, we needed to know precisely what, in fact, the authors were claiming in terms of the populating of Europe from a mtDNA "H" perspective.

  24. #49
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsRecommendation First Class
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    LeBrok's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-11-09
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    10,329
    Points
    110,111
    Level
    100
    Points: 110,111, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b Z2109
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c

    Ethnic group
    Citizen of the world
    Country: Canada-Alberta



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Thanks for the kind words, Aberdeen. I just thought that before even getting to the merits of the conclusions, we needed to know precisely what, in fact, the authors were claiming in terms of the populating of Europe from a mtDNA "H" perspective.
    It was a great summary Angela, I gladly enjoyed it not having time to read research papers these days.

  25. #50
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779
    Points
    10,483
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,483, Level: 30
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 67
    Overall activity: 2.0%


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    GailT, who posts at Anthrogenica makes the point far better than I can, and coming from a far better grasp of mtDNA than I have:

    "My guess is that there were not just a few waves of migration - the concept of early farmers partially replacing hunter-gatherers, and late Neolithic immigrants partially replacing earlier farmers is much too simplistic. There were very likely many waves of migration that varied in different parts of Europe. For example, much of the U5 found in Finland today is not a Paleolithic remnant, rather, a large part of it appears to be a Neolithic migration that arrived via eastern Europe. So I think we need many more ancient samples from a much wider region to even begin to understand the complexity of past migrations. The new studies from Brandt et al and Bollinger et al. are fascinating, but they focus on a small geographical area. We need that level of analysis from many different areas."
    Until very recently - In the Netherlands that was 1980 - wild areas in Europe were drained and cultivated. Or, in the case of undrainable lands, tranformed to meadows for cattle. Agriculture and the spread into wild areas are intimately connected. That means that agricultural cultures are *constantly* colonizing. Taking my country as an example again, one third of the Netherlands consisted of peatbogs. They all are transformed to agricultural grounds, apart from small remnants. One could call this something like "migration within".

    Couldn't it be that *some* changes in haplogroups somehow reflect the uptake of people met during this "migration within"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I would just add that given Lazaridis et al and now the Paschou et al paper, it seems to more probable that although there might have been different pulses of the Neolithic into Europe, the autosomal signature shows a departure for Europe from the Levant area primarily by sea and then splitting and differentiation after that, but further testing will clarify matters.
    Could you elaborate on this?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •