Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 74 of 74

Thread: European mtDNA Signature Established in the Mid Neolithic

  1. #51
    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
    Indeed, that's why the Haak group has been mining this area for years, not just in this paper but in the prior Haak et al papers and the Brandt et al paper referred to by Epoch.

    I just don't think that changes the fact that, setting aside any other issues with the paper, such as the number of ancient samples per culture, and their determinations concerning drift just as two examples, it is injudicious to extrapolate from this area to make broad generalizations about all of Europe.
    I understand this hesitation, mind you. The answer to it is the answer that has been given on many occasions: "We need more data" :)

  2. #52
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,822
    Points
    249,096
    Level
    100
    Points: 249,096, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    epoch;435031]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"?
    I absolutely think that's possible. What I think is a mistake is to imagine that the present day haplogroup distribution in European countries, especially in terms of yDNA, but even to some extent for mtDNA, is an exact mirror of what it was even after the arrival of the Indo-Europeans, for example. When climate change and the Huns pushed the Germanic tribes west and south, tribes that ultimately toppled the Empire, there had to have been some "mixing" of genes. Then the Slavic invasions further "stirred the pot". (That's not to say that the affect was the same for all countries. I don't see much evidence for influence in Italy from the Slavic tribes, and even the "Germanic" influence seems pretty minor if we are to go by the y-DNA sub-groups that I think most people would see as markers of those migrations, like R1b U106 and I1.)

    Industrialization is another huge factor. Just in terms of Italy, which I know best, there has been an extremely large internal migration from the areas south of Rome to the north, and in particular to the Lombardia (Milano), Piemonte (Torino), and Liguria (Genova) triangle, as these were the areas that were first industrialized. The majority of that migration took place starting in the mid 1950's and continues to this day, but there was migration to Genova in the late 19th century, for example, from the hinterlands of Liguria itself, from the Veneto, and from northern Toscana. *

    I think it's probable that such "internal" migrations, particularly of women, would have taken place in Neolithic Europe as well, and may go some way toward explaining the changes from the early Neolithic to the Middle Neolithic which Brotherton et al purport to see, in addition differentiation within Europe, and to drift.


    Could you elaborate on this?
    The comment I made to the effect that, "although there might have been different pulses of the Neolithic into Europe, the genetic signature shows a departure for Europe from the Levant area primarily by sea and then splitting and differentiation after that" is based on my interpretation of the findings of Paschou et al. (and Lazaridis et al) FrankN and I are going to have to agree to disagree about it. :) Of course, a paper could come out tomorrow showing there were two autosomally different waves of the Neolithic, one from the Levant and one from Anatolia; it's just that I don't think that's what Paschou shows.

    You can see the discussion here:

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...hlight=Paschou

    *Edited to add "in the late 19th century".
    Last edited by Angela; 07-07-14 at 14:28.


    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

  3. #53
    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



    I think this thread has gone badly off course. Is there anyone who's actually read the study I originally referenced and who has an opinion as to whether it makes sense?

  4. #54
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    I think this thread has gone badly off course. Is there anyone who's actually read the study I originally referenced and who has an opinion as to whether it makes sense?
    While I understand that some of the discussion has gone off topic, and actually myself proposed to shift some posts to a new thread, as you did, I feel you done a bit too much of re-arranging. For the points I was to bring forward (and I have been working on more than one answer to the original question posed), the following posts that I feel are pertinent to the discussion would greatly help to understand my arguments (numbers relate to the new thread):

    #8 Flint mining as essential part of Neolithic interchange in Central Europe
    #17 Background on the LBK culture that, according to Brotherton, has been completely overturned in the middle & late Neolithic
    #20 MK as a possible culprit (I plan to go into further detail on that)
    #22 Epoch on Swifterblade culture (I intend to further comment on the Swifterblade-MK relation outlined in his links)
    #29 If it is possible for you to split the post, the second half should go here, the first half is fine where it is now. Otherwise, I might just repost the second half here.
    #30 Epoch on Dutch land losses (I intend to look into the issue of population pressure from drowning lands in more detail. Short answer is - it's probably not an issue, but the point is nevertheless interesting enough for a few more paragraphs).

    I also think that the housing piece may still become relevant, but at the moment I haven't progressed beyond 4,000 BC, the initial genetic turnover found by Brotherton. If I understood you correctly, your interest is more on BB/ Corded Ware, and housing might tell us something about them as well. However if you prefer to keep it outside this thread, I'll accept it (though I don't really see it in any way related to "limitations of genetic models").

    Once you have shifted the above posts back, I will delete this post. If you feel they should stay in the other thread I will have quite some problems to contribute further in a meaningful way, which would be regrettable as I think the study, and the region in question are important to better understand Central European Neolithic.

  5. #55
    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 FrankN View Post
    While I understand that some of the discussion has gone off topic, and actually myself proposed to shift some posts to a new thread, as you did, I feel you done a bit too much of re-arranging. For the points I was to bring forward (and I have been working on more than one answer to the original question posed), the following posts that I feel are pertinent to the discussion would greatly help to understand my arguments (numbers relate to the new thread):

    #8 Flint mining as essential part of Neolithic interchange in Central Europe
    #17 Background on the LBK culture that, according to Brotherton, has been completely overturned in the middle & late Neolithic
    #20 MK as a possible culprit (I plan to go into further detail on that)
    #22 Epoch on Swifterblade culture (I intend to further comment on the Swifterblade-MK relation outlined in his links)
    #29 If it is possible for you to split the post, the second half should go here, the first half is fine where it is now. Otherwise, I might just repost the second half here.
    #30 Epoch on Dutch land losses (I intend to look into the issue of population pressure from drowning lands in more detail. Short answer is - it's probably not an issue, but the point is nevertheless interesting enough for a few more paragraphs).

    I also think that the housing piece may still become relevant, but at the moment I haven't progressed beyond 4,000 BC, the initial genetic turnover found by Brotherton. If I understood you correctly, your interest is more on BB/ Corded Ware, and housing might tell us something about them as well. However if you prefer to keep it outside this thread, I'll accept it (though I don't really see it in any way related to "limitations of genetic models").

    Once you have shifted the above posts back, I will delete this post. If you feel they should stay in the other thread I will have quite some problems to contribute further in a meaningful way, which would be regrettable as I think the study, and the region in question are important to better understand Central European Neolithic.
    I can't move posts - only a moderator can do that. I'm just saying that my personal opinion is that the thread is now badly off topic in many respects. I originally posted a reference to this study because I only had the abstract to look at, since the rest of the paper was behind a paywall, and I was curious as to how they arrived at their conclusions. Once ebAmerican posted the whole study for us to look at, I felt that the conclusions of the study failed to match the data. While the mtDNA haplotype H was present in Europe from an early date (and was found in at least one LBK site), it had not reached its present dominance in Europe by 6000 BP, which is what the authors indicated. And while subclade H1 was present by then, H5 seemed to still have been the most common subclade at that point. And I don't see any point in trying to decide how the present structure of mtDNA H came to be established 6000 years ago when that is not in fact the case.

    As for housing styles, you would have to show consistency of styles over a very long period of time for housing styles to be relevant. Showing that some barns that currently exist follow a style somewhat similar to a really ancient building doesn't, in itself, prove continuity. Nor does it address the question of whether different ethnic or tribal groups may have used a similar style of building construction and/or layout. There have been a lot of population movements in that part of the world. And I'm not sure what housing styles in one part of Europe have to do with the present predominance of mtDNA H, particularly H1 and H3, in the whole of Europe.

  6. #56
    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



    Timeline underlying the Brotherton Study

    The Brotherton study has yielded several remarkable results that, however, could definitely have been presented in a clearer and less misunderstandable way. In order to create an overview on their actual findings, I try to put together a cultural timeline, based on the cultural epochs used by them, and describe their findings (including those only documented in the annex) within that timeline. I furthermore add Wikipedia information on the cultures themselves, and on the development of metallurgy in the region as described here:
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post432246


    1. LBK (5,500 - 4,800 BC): The share of mtDNA H increases from virtually zero to 20%. In the PCA analysis, the LBK sample clusters together with present-day populations from the Near East and the Caucasus, especially Lebanese and Ossetians. Brotherton et. al interpret this as confirmation for the spread of farming via substantial immigration from these regions, and not just by cultural exchange as supposed by other theories.
    2. Rössen (4,800 - 4,200 BC): According to their Supplementary Material, the phase actually contains several, partly temporally overlapping or regionally distinct cultures. Aside from Rössen, there is the ornamented ware (STK) culture that precedes Rössen, and the Gatersleben culture as regional phenomenon in the late Rössen phase. Increasing regional differentiation during this phase has also been observed elsewhere, e.g. the Großgarlach, Hinkelstein, Bischheim and early Michelsberg cultures that have preceded or paralleled the Rössen culture along the Rhine. The beginning of this period is marked by the construction of several large earthworks with astronomical functions such as the Goseck circle, a phenomenon that originated in the Danubian Lengyel culture and apparently spread along the Elbe. Along the Rhine, Rijkholt flint (Maastricht area) is increasingly being replaced by upper Bavarian flint. This corresponds to an expansion of the Michelsberg Culture (MK) from the Paris Basin towards the Rhine, and most likely also into the upper Danube basin.
      The share of mtDNA H increases to 40%. Changes in the sub-composition are not assessed. Visual inspection of the phylogenetic network suggests a relatively constant composition. Brotherton's demographic simulation yields a substantial increase in absolute mtDNA H population, within a population that is growing as well, but apparently at a lower rate. Unfortunately, they have only published their skyride plot, not the underlying data. In any case, they seem to interpret this as a sign of relative demographic success of early farmers vis-à-vis the original HG population. I personally think that additional immigration from the LBK "homeland" around the central Danube would plausibly explain both the emergence of astronomical earthworks, and at least part of the increase in mtDNA H frequency.
    3. Schöningen (4,100 - 3,950 BC): A rather obscure culture that is neither covered in their supplementary materials nor by Wikipedia. It seems to be commonly regarded either as final phase of the Gatersleben culture, or as initial phase of the subsequent Baalberge culture. The period is nevertheless remarkable, as it shows the first evidence of copper imports from the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). The westerly adjacent Michelsberg Culture MK expands into the Scheldt and Rhine-Meuse basins, replacing the Mesolithic Swifterbank culture there, and also gains cultural influence on the Elbe-Saale region. Under influences of Elbe-Saale cultures and MK, the Mesolithic Ertebolle culture in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Sweden transforms into the Funnelbeaker Culture. The shift in Northern Germany is fast, in Denmark abrupt.
      Brotherton et al. are apparently themselves not sure where to place this phase. For statistical purposes, they treat it as Middle Neolithic, but in their phylogenetic analysis it appears as Early Neolithic. The fact that mtDNA H frequency drops to below 20% suggests significant demographic change. However, as there are only two samples from this phase, it is hardly possible to assess whether this demographic change relates to additional gene inflow (immigration), mtDNA H gene outflow (migration to other regions, e.g. due to overpopulation), and/or a major farming crisis. The period in question marks the transition from the wet and hot Atlantikum to the cooler and dryer Boreal. The local climate may have furthermore been affected by the Littorina Transgression, i.e. the flooding of the (previously dry) Western Baltic Sea basin through the Great Belt, which started in 5,500 BC and reached its maximum extent by 2,500 BC. Brotherton's demographic simulation displays stagnation, but not decline of the absolute mtDNA H population.


    As I have a football match to watch tonight, and will be visiting friends, I leave it here for the time being, but will continue next week.

  7. #57
    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



    Off toppic posts were moved yesterday to this new thread: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...genetic-models

    I'm not sure why this new thread didn't show up on Forums main page? Sorry, I should have mentioned it in a new post here.
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  8. #58
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Mt DNA autosomals in some regions



    • I precise the geographic distribution does not imply any climatic rapid selection of mt DNA-H1-
    • I'm aware I base that on the today distribution -
    • the founding survey of this thread is very unprecise concerning geography

    the debate concerning mt H is veryinsteresting, even if personally I lack more detailed data about thegeographical distribution of all the mt-H subclades
    -H1 I found very interesting : itsdistribution peaks among Berbers, Atlantic Europe and Finland/Estoniadoesn't seem illustrating an I-Ean East to West introgression OR wewould imagine a first vawe followed and partly erased by othersteppic people, but the presence in North Africa (of which LybianBerbers) even if exagerated maybe by founder effects, doesn't suggestthis I-Ean origin –
    but on the other hand, the strongenough presence in not-I-Ean populations as Finland (18,0%) andEstonia (16,7%), finnic speaking and TOO among other finnic speakersof the Oural region (13,6%), if not typical of I-Eans, could seemweird for Neolithic peasants from the Near-East or even Anatolia -confirmation of the russian position close to finnic speakingpopulations, here too; by the fact, the Near-Eastern regions, as theCaucasus as a whole, are poor enough for mt-H1 (from 0,0% to 4,2%,the most being around Lebanon) – the BBs influence was evocatedconcerning the spreading in Atlantic and central peri-danubianregions of Europe (here at poor enough levels from 8% to 12% with alittle peak in Slovakia – but the presence among western finnicspeaking people is still a question ! -
    the Eupedia map of mt-H1+H3 doesn'tchange this global sketch, in complement we can add the British Islesand Scandinavia as hotspots – in fact, the western steppes Norththe Caucasus are less poor for H1/H3 than southeastern Europeregions as Italy, Greece and most of all Albania and CarpathianRomania Moldavia (echo of Starcevo and then Cucuteni-Tripoljehere?) ; this seems excluding even more the FIRST genuineneolithic peasants from Near-Eastern and farther South than theI-Eans -
    first consequence, knowing agricultureseem having been born until us by populations with a strong'south-western asian' component, we can say the H1+H3 element didn'tcome with it – maybe at a close enough time, BUT NOT withit – the strong enough density on the northern side of North Africais very confusing – one of the BBs theory (not stupid) imagining amaritime East to West road until Iberia and N-Africa requires morebasis – the Long Barrows or other megalithic people possiblecolonizations of northwestern and northern Europe doesn't explain thenorthwestern eurasian steppes and Finland presence, even if someonescould object time passed since... -
    As the today Basques seem the focus ofthis grouping of mt-DNA and as the presence in Dodecad K12 of'basque' autosomals component in northern Europe and even Finland(even if the densities are not comparable in absolute) are noticeablecompared to southeastern Europe and Near-East we could imagine therethe signal of an old enough colonization by these « females » ?a survey about the respective distributions of 'south-east-farmers'EEF , 'west-hunters-gatherers' WHG and 'ANE' showed roughly a highenough WHG in northern Europe as for ANE, even if this two componentsare not parfectly parrallelic – the Spain Basques are in some wayricher for EEF + ANE (!) than the France Basques who are richer forWHG : I 'm almost sure the french Basques are the most typicallybasque, as a whole – the ANE component in Iberia is confusing butit seems the Spain Basques share there something with theCantabrians ? (whose mt DNA has something special recording someparts of northern Europe, according to some scholars, but I've notthe details) – we would need more regional data about autosomals– the ANE would recall some eastern colonizations, I-Ean or not, orboth ; I think Portugal W+S Spain WHG would be more linked tothe mt-H1+H3 complex, the N-Spain and other WHG more linked to mt-U(5the most) – U5 and ANE could be arrived in western Europefrom East just after the 9000 BC (Solutrean people from W-Asia asbelieved the old scholars? More brutal phenotypes ?) -
    all that is speculations because noneof the criteria Y-DNA, mt-DNA and autsomals are evolving at the verysame speed – (even the categorizations of autosomals is cause ofinternal autosomals differences) and we have not the sufficientsamples for every place and period -


    now I've the problem of elderness ofmt-H as a whole and H1-H3 in particular, and also the way taken toreach western and northern Europe : I'm tempted to think H1-H3were born by the first mt-H already present in W or S Iberia at lastMesolithic... their presence of their ancetors Haplo's in southernEurope could trace back very earlier (Paleolithic, before LGM) -
    hypothesis : a) E >> Wthrough Mediterranea (middle or late Neolithic ? lateMesolithic?) – b) W >> E through N-Europe (late Neolithic ?calcholithic-bronze age?) - mt-U5 seemed the only or almost only mtDNA among the HGs of Europe – we lack dense data about theMesolithic compared to Neolithic (and yet, in this last case too thedensity is weak in fact) – is mt-U so old as Palolithic in westernEurope ? Nothing tell us for sure - Was Cro-Magnon of mt-Ustock ??? We (I only?) lack every kind of DNA from recentPaleolithic in Europe -
    WHG with already some mt-H amongmt-U when mt-U was more exclusive in ANE ? Or H1-H3 ancestorsalready present at two ends of Europe in late Mesolithic and andjunction helped by Atlantic Bronze with the help of BBs boosting ???very imaginative this last one! -
    whatever thehypothesis we can construct, it seems to me the « explosion »of mt-H in Europe, for me already before metal ages, as conclude somesurveys, even it at this last date new mt-H could have been arrivedthere – the surveys about the mtDNA in the post-Danubianagricultural cultures in Hungary show clearly a very bigger weight ofmt-H West the Tisza (LBK : ) compared to East the Tisza (ALPC),being the opposite for mt-J – other mtDNA haplogr's show somedifferences of distribution, but very less strong – I 'm sure theH1-H3 are not the descendants of the mt-H rare yet among theNear-East agricultors and who gave birth surely to other subclades ofmt-H –the strong presence in Finland, Scandinavia and the light butnoticeable presence among Balts and some Russians compared to thepoorness among S-E Europe confirms that – but at the same time, thestronger weight in far North seems eliminatating an I-Ean« importation » at first sight – so mt -H1/H3 is OLD inW and N Europe – the presence in N-Africa could could have beenmagnified by the BBs colonization or exploitation (even if alreadythere) + the reinforcing of this presence in Atlantic and CentralEurope at immediate pre-Bronze-Age is surely linked to BBscolonization and later to a demographic increase linked to theprogress due to previous BBs intervention in other subesquentcultures -
    a W to E or E to Wsingle travel at the daybreak of metal ages is too simplistic :but males mediated colonizations more or less local or ongreat scale (1° Long Barrows and assimilated, early : 4200/4000BC ??? – 2° protoceltic or partly celtic Y-R1b-<<L11,later : 2500 BC ?) could have reinforced AND modified theprevious mt-H1/H3 geographic distributions locally, principally inCentral Europe -
    so : a firstW>>E move at middle-to-last Neolithic time with a preferencefor N-coasts (what Y-Haplos?) and then at pre-metal and metal agescomplicated intrication of diverse moves, where Celts played a bigrôle, after the help send by BBs of unknown origin to me – Iadd the presence in Finland and around is older : just after theLGM -
    western females anddiverse southern and eastern males + demographic encrease – thesefemale (maybe with a strong 'basque' + light 'sardinian' autosomalelement present among West-HGs, these last maybe corresponding to the« SECOND Mesolithic » trapeze microliths) mixed more thana time with male mediated autosomals from South-East('west-mediterranean' as 'sardinian' + 'east-mediterranean' and maybe'southwest-asian') and some East ('northsea' or 'northwesterneuropean' autosomal elements +others ???: more linked toproto-Celts-Italics-Germanics) –
    I'm not sureEurogenes thinks mt-H1 among Trichterbecher Culture in Sweden is asign of southeastern mediterranean agricultors ? - it could verywell be an error if it were the case: I red somewhere theTrichterbecher (Funnelbeaker) culture was born in a crossing place(peri-Danmark area and great rivers around) with previous megalithic'Long-Barrows'like, Neolithic agricultors (more bovins) cultures andlater Globular Amphores cultures influence - the last one, lateneolithical, could have had I-Eans influences and had comprised someeastern influences (?) - but for me the mt-H1 elements in theTrichter-B culture of Scandinavia came more surely from themegalithical elements -the mt-H bearers population could even hadbeen there before the megalithers, being after reinforced by the mixcalled 'Trichterbecher' where finally the megalithers (LongBarrows-like, tombes à couloir) seems the impulsing element -whatever the case I recall my opinion about what I consider the'long-barrow' anthropological mix where western pre-neolithicalelements from atlantic France-Iberia dominated eastern mediterraneanelements – concerning autosomals understanding, the Eurogenesthought that the mix 'Europeans' + Near-Easterners took place on thecontinent and then was transmitted to Scandinavian by Trichterbecherpeople is not stupid – all the way it says nothing about datationof mt-H1 pr pre-H1 presence in North...
    the presence inFinland and near the Baltic could be due to W >> E earlier(Ertebölle?) and later (I-Ean corded?) movements implicating diverseY-DNA bearers (among them Y-I1 people, first, and later Y-R-U106 +Y-R1a) : it would be interesting to know the estimated age ofthe mt-H1/3 in Finland an around -
    Sorry for thisunprecise enough post concerning dates – it is just a try to applygood sense to very unlevel data (for time, localisation, homogeneity,sample size) = for the fun of betting -

  9. #59
    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 FrankN View Post
    The Brotherton study has yielded several remarkable results that, however, could definitely have been presented in a clearer and less misunderstandable way. In order to create an overview on their actual findings, I try to put together a cultural timeline, based on the cultural epochs used by them, and describe their findings (including those only documented in the annex) within that timeline. I furthermore add Wikipedia information on the cultures themselves, and on the development of metallurgy in the region as described here:
    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...l=1#post432246


    1. LBK (5,500 - 4,800 BC): The share of mtDNA H increases from virtually zero to 20%. In the PCA analysis, the LBK sample clusters together with present-day populations from the Near East and the Caucasus, especially Lebanese and Ossetians. Brotherton et. al interpret this as confirmation for the spread of farming via substantial immigration from these regions, and not just by cultural exchange as supposed by other theories.
    2. Rössen (4,800 - 4,200 BC): According to their Supplementary Material, the phase actually contains several, partly temporally overlapping or regionally distinct cultures. Aside from Rössen, there is the ornamented ware (STK) culture that precedes Rössen, and the Gatersleben culture as regional phenomenon in the late Rössen phase. Increasing regional differentiation during this phase has also been observed elsewhere, e.g. the Großgarlach, Hinkelstein, Bischheim and early Michelsberg cultures that have preceded or paralleled the Rössen culture along the Rhine. The beginning of this period is marked by the construction of several large earthworks with astronomical functions such as the Goseck circle, a phenomenon that originated in the Danubian Lengyel culture and apparently spread along the Elbe. Along the Rhine, Rijkholt flint (Maastricht area) is increasingly being replaced by upper Bavarian flint. This corresponds to an expansion of the Michelsberg Culture (MK) from the Paris Basin towards the Rhine, and most likely also into the upper Danube basin.
      The share of mtDNA H increases to 40%. Changes in the sub-composition are not assessed. Visual inspection of the phylogenetic network suggests a relatively constant composition. Brotherton's demographic simulation yields a substantial increase in absolute mtDNA H population, within a population that is growing as well, but apparently at a lower rate. Unfortunately, they have only published their skyride plot, not the underlying data. In any case, they seem to interpret this as a sign of relative demographic success of early farmers vis-à-vis the original HG population. I personally think that additional immigration from the LBK "homeland" around the central Danube would plausibly explain both the emergence of astronomical earthworks, and at least part of the increase in mtDNA H frequency.
    3. Schöningen (4,100 - 3,950 BC): A rather obscure culture that is neither covered in their supplementary materials nor by Wikipedia. It seems to be commonly regarded either as final phase of the Gatersleben culture, or as initial phase of the subsequent Baalberge culture. The period is nevertheless remarkable, as it shows the first evidence of copper imports from the Western Carpathians (Slovakia). The westerly adjacent Michelsberg Culture MK expands into the Scheldt and Rhine-Meuse basins, replacing the Mesolithic Swifterbank culture there, and also gains cultural influence on the Elbe-Saale region. Under influences of Elbe-Saale cultures and MK, the Mesolithic Ertebolle culture in Northern Germany, Denmark and Southern Sweden transforms into the Funnelbeaker Culture. The shift in Northern Germany is fast, in Denmark abrupt.
      Brotherton et al. are apparently themselves not sure where to place this phase. For statistical purposes, they treat it as Middle Neolithic, but in their phylogenetic analysis it appears as Early Neolithic. The fact that mtDNA H frequency drops to below 20% suggests significant demographic change. However, as there are only two samples from this phase, it is hardly possible to assess whether this demographic change relates to additional gene inflow (immigration), mtDNA H gene outflow (migration to other regions, e.g. due to overpopulation), and/or a major farming crisis. The period in question marks the transition from the wet and hot Atlantikum to the cooler and dryer Boreal. The local climate may have furthermore been affected by the Littorina Transgression, i.e. the flooding of the (previously dry) Western Baltic Sea basin through the Great Belt, which started in 5,500 BC and reached its maximum extent by 2,500 BC. Brotherton's demographic simulation displays stagnation, but not decline of the absolute mtDNA H population.


    As I have a football match to watch tonight, and will be visiting friends, I leave it here for the time being, but will continue next week.
    No, you are mistaken, IMO. HV may have been present in Spain and Italy during the Paleolithic, and H was definitely present in Russia, the Ukraine and Spain over 7,000 years BP, i.e. prior to Rosen. However there were a variety of mtDNA types, and U was the most common. If I look at the results reported in Ancestral Journeys, it indicates that the Rossen results show 4 out of 15 have mtDNA H (and one HV) but only one of those four is H1 and none are H3, so we don't have a pattern similar to the modern H distribution in Europe. And H is much less apparent in the large number of samples from Schoningen and Baalberge at a slightly later date, right around 4,000 B.C. or a bit later for Baalberge. So H seems to have been at least marginally present in Europe since at least the Mesolithic but only shows up in large numbers in Iberia 5000 years BP and later, and the modern mtDNA structure of Europe doesn't really seem to have developed until the Iron Age. IMO, there's no point in trying to discuss what the conclusions of this paper mean for DNA in Europe when the conclusions seem to be quite wrong.

  10. #60
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    No, you are mistaken, IMO. HV may have been present in Spain and Italy during the Paleolithic, and H was definitely present in Russia, the Ukraine and Spain over 7,000 years BP, i.e. prior to Rosen. However there were a variety of mtDNA types, and U was the most common. If I look at the results reported in Ancestral Journeys, it indicates that the Rossen results show 4 out of 15 have mtDNA H (and one HV) but only one of those four is H1 and none are H3, so we don't have a pattern similar to the modern H distribution in Europe. And H is much less apparent in the large number of samples from Schoningen and Baalberge at a slightly later date, right around 4,000 B.C. or a bit later for Baalberge. So H seems to have been at least marginally present in Europe since at least the Mesolithic but only shows up in large numbers in Iberia 5000 years BP and later, and the modern mtDNA structure of Europe doesn't really seem to have developed until the Iron Age. IMO, there's no point in trying to discuss what the conclusions of this paper mean for DNA in Europe when the conclusions seem to be quite wrong.
    I was simply reporting their findings. Supplementary Fig. 3 in the Annex states clearly that none of the 13 Mesolithic samples from the region contained mtDNA H, and I recall having read an earlier paper from some of the co-authors where they already reported these results in more detail. Among the 102 LBK samples (and this is quite a sample size, better than what we have for most countries' present population!), however, 20% had mtNA H. Of course, mtDNA H must already have been present somewhere else in Europe in the Mesolthic, but those places weren't in the Elbe-Saale region. Their LBK samples date from around 7,000 BP, that rather seems to be contemporary or even older than the samples from Russia, Ukraine and Spain that you mention (I hope you realise that Rössen was about 500-1,000 years after the period in question here).

    The more important point is that the mtDNA H they found in the LBK samples is hardly present any more in Central Europe.
    Early Neolithic (and in particular LBK) mt genomes are either rare today (H16, H23, H26), extinct or have not yet been observed in present-day populations (H46b, H88, H89). In sharp contrast, most of the later H sub-hgs are more common in present-day European populations (e.g. hg H3, H4, H6, H7, H11, and H13)12,14-16. Of the 39 haplotypes detected, only three (within the common, basal, sub-hg H1) were shared between ENE and MNE/LNE cultures. Since the observed gene diversity is high, we might expect the number of shared haplotypes within and between cultures to be low. However, since the MNE/LNE haplotypes are on different sub-hg branches from the ENE haplotypes, these patterns combined show minimal local genetic continuity over this time period.
    (..)
    Our genetic distance data also indicate minimal local genetic continuity between the Early Neolithic and the Mid/Late Neolithic in Central Europe (Figure 1; Table 1), again suggesting that Early Neolithic lineages were largely superseded during the Mid/Late Neolithic (~4100-2200 BC) in a previously unrecognised major genetic transition. This pronounced genetic changeover between Early and Mid/Late Neolithic cultures is comparable to other known major genetic transition thus far revealed by ancient DNA and coalescent simulations (between indigenous European hunter-gatherers and incoming early farmers from the Near East during the initial Meso-Neolithic transition from ~7500 BC in Central Europe).
    I invite you to demonstrate why this conclusion is wrong. Distribution maps of H16, H23, H26, H46b, H88 and H89 could be of great help in this respect to show to which places in Europe the offspring of all those EEF females migrated. Oh, they didn't migrate anywhere - 66% of the EEF female gene pool just disappeared. Well, that certainly hasn't any relevance to Europe as a whole.

    It would, btw, also be nice if anybody could explain to me how those other 3 LBK samples, which all carry mtDNA H1, made it from their presumed Franco-Cantabrian LGM refugium to the Middle Elbe just in time to join their distant Anatolian cousins at the LBK party.

    This, btw, is another interesting finding by Brotherton et al. that so far hasn't been discussed:
    Another major advantage of the temporal calibration points provided by ancient hg H mt genomes is that the data allow a relatively precise estimate of the evolutionary substitution rate for human mtDNA. The temporal dependency of evolutionary rates predicts that rate estimates measured over short timespans will be considerably higher than those using deep fossil calibrations, such as the human/chimpanzee split at ~6 million years29. The rate calibrated by the Neolithic and Bronze Age sequences is 2.4×10−8 substitutions/site/year (1.7 to 3.2×10−8; 95% High Posterior Density) for the entire mt genome, which is 1.45× (44.5%) higher than current estimates based on the traditional human/chimp split (e.g. 1.66×10−8 for the entire mt genome30 and 1.26×10−8 for the coding region31). Consequently, the calibrated ‘Neolithic’ rate infers a considerably younger coalescence date for hg H (10.9 to 19.1 kya) than those previously reported (19.2 to 21.4 kya for HVSI10, 15.7 to 22.5 kya for the mt coding region31 or 14.7-22.6 kya when corrected for purifying selection30 .
    I am anything but an expert when it comes to these kinds of calculations, but I suppose that finding is not only relevant to mtDNA H, but to most of the coalescence dates that we have been using so far.

  11. #61
    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



    IMO, you have a marvellous capacity to miss the point, FrankN. While the results from Rossen show more mtDNA H than has been found at any Euopean site previously, it also shows more mtDNA H than has been found at European sites that are many centuries later than Rossen, so those results cannot be taken as a proxy for Europe around 4,000 B.C. (and they're actually a bit earlier than that). The Rossen results can't even be taken as a proxy for Germany around 4,000 B.C., since the many samples from Schoninger, which do date from around 4,000 B.C., have much less mtDNA H, as do the somewhat later results from Baalberge. The conclusion of the study was that "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)." That's clearly not correct for Europe, or even for Germany as a whole. I would argue that if you actually look at the Rossen results and the modern DNA results, such a conclusion is only slightly valid for that one small set of samples from Rossen. One cannot extrapolate too much from that, since the results are not replicated in subsequent finds for Neolithic Europe.

    Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this conversation, I will leave you to grind out your long posts, even though I personally believe that they generally obscure the point at issue in most threads where you post. But maybe that's just my perspective.

  12. #62
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    IMO, you have a marvellous capacity to miss the point, FrankN. While the results from Rossen show more mtDNA H than has been found at any Euopean site previously, it also shows more mtDNA H than has been found at European sites that are many centuries later than Rossen, so those results cannot be taken as a proxy for Europe around 4,000 B.C. (and they're actually a bit earlier than that). The Rossen results can't even be taken as a proxy for Germany around 4,000 B.C., since the many samples from Schoninger, which do date from around 4,000 B.C., have much less mtDNA H, as do the somewhat later results from Baalberge. The conclusion of the study was that "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)." That's clearly not correct for Europe, or even for Germany as a whole. I would argue that if you actually look at the Rossen results and the modern DNA results, such a conclusion is only slightly valid for that one small set of samples from Rossen. One cannot extrapolate too much from that, since the results are not replicated in subsequent finds for Neolithic Europe.

    Since we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this conversation, I will leave you to grind out your long posts, even though I personally believe that they generally obscure the point at issue in most threads where you post. But maybe that's just my perspective.
    The way the study conclusion has been formulated is obviously bullshit, and doesn't represent their findings. I actually don't understand why they are making such a statement that is discrediting an otherwise highly valuable and interesting piece of research. I still try to figure out what they actually uncovered, maybe that's the reason for long posts.

    I think, the best way to rephrase their findings is:
    "The genetic structure established by EEF didn't survive the climatic transition from Atlanticum to Boreal. The current diversity and distribution of haplogroup H in Central Europe were largely established by the Mid Neolithic during the 4th millennium 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).".
    Your comment on their Rössen findings is
    legitimate. As I already said before (unfortunately in a post that somebody decided to be "off topic"), all four Rössen samples come from a single gravefield, and may thus not be representative. However, their LBK samples have been taken from 3 different locations, as have been those for MNE (Schöningen / Baalberg / Salzmünde), and the above statement remains valid even if the Rössen samples are discarded.

    That was obviously not what they expected to find. Otherwise, I am sure, they would have done more MNE sampling, and especially have included samples from the late 4h millennium Bernburg culture so we would have known the genetic situation before BB and Corded Ware arrived.

  13. #63
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    As Angela had asked for it - here a map of documented LBK settlements in the Elbe-Saale region (NW of map), Upper Franconia, Bohemia, Moravia and Western Silesia. The westward "bay" in the Elbe-Saale settlement zone is the Harz. The Lichtenstein cave (itself not LBK!) is just west of the Harz.

    Settlement concentrated on regions that are today characterised by "Steppenheide" (heath steppe), i.e. widely unforested, and covered with loess. The picture below is from Thuringia, south of the Harz.

  14. #64
    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 have looked a bit deeper in the Rössen results reported by Ancestral Journeys. For the Elbe-Saale region, ancient mtDNA is available from four locations. Two of them (Hettstedt-Oberwietderstedt, and Wittmar near Wolfenbüttel) have a >=50% share of mtDNA H/HV0 (5 out of 9 samples in Oberwiederstedt, 2 out of 4 in Wittmar). The locations are 90 km distant from each other. From each of the two other locations (Halberstadt, Esperstedt) there is only one sample available. Halberstadt is V, Esperstedt T2e. If we take all those 15 samples, we get the following distribution of mtDNA:

    mtDNA HG
    n %
    HV0 2 13.3 %
    V 1 6.7 %
    H1 1 6.7 %
    H5 / H5b 2 13.3 %
    other H (rare/ extinct) 2 13.3 %
    Subtotal H/V/HV0
    8
    53.3%
    U5b / K 3 20.0%
    T2 2 13.3%
    X2c 1 6,7%
    N1a1a 1 6,7%
    Total 15 100 %

    I don't have an explanation for the results yet. Hettstedt-Oberwiederstedt (silver, copper) and Wittmar (salt) are historical mining towns, but that doesn't apply to Halberstadt, where one mtDNA V sample was found. I think, for the time being, we have to accept the fact that the Elbe-Saale region, btw, the so-far best sampled European region, displays elevated frequencies of mtDNA H/V/HV0 during the middle of the 5th millennium BC.

    I checked the Ancestral Journeys' data for other samples from that period:

    • Tisza Culture (Hungary), 5,000-4.500 BC: 67% mtDNA H (2 out of 3 samples)
    • Trentino / South Tirol, 4.500-4,000 BC: 50% mtDNA H (1 out of 2)
    • St. Pau de Camp (Spain), 4,250-3,750 BC: 33% mtDNA H (1 out of 3)
    • Navarre (Spain), 4,185-3,185 BC: 39% mtDNA H/HV (9 out of 23)
    • Verteba Cave (Ukraine), 4th millennium BC: 67% mtDNA H/HV (4 out of 6)
    • Gokhem (Sweden), 3,500-2,500 BC: 50% mtDNA H (3 out of 6)


    Opposite to what Aberdeen claims, to me this looks like quite a pan-European pattern (of course with temporal variation).
    Last edited by FrankN; 18-07-14 at 15:57. Reason: Corrected the temporal reference - Rössen was mid-5th millenium BC

  15. #65
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Here for comparison ancient mtDNA data for the late 6th/ early 5th millennium BC. The increase in H/HV frequency during the mid-/late 5th millennium was obviously not only a local phenomenon in the Elbe-Saale region, but also occurred in Ukraine, the central Pyrenees, and, to the extent the limited number of samples allows for conclusion, in Hungary.
    Culture
    Location
    Time (BC)
    n
    hgH
    %
    Cardial Pottery Spain/ Portugal (Can Sadum, Chaves)
    5,500-5,000 9 3 33
    Dnieper-Donets Ukraine (Yasinovatka, Nikolskoje) 5,600-5,000 11 4 36
    LBK Morava (Vedrovice) 5,300 5 1 20
    Alföld Hungary 5,250-5,000 3
    1 33
    LBK Elbe-Saale (Brotherton study) 5,500-4,800 102 ~17
    LBK Elbe-Saale (Anc. Journ. data) 5,300-4,900 43 6 14
    LBK SW Germany (Stuttgart, Vaihingen, Flomborn) 5,100-4,800 6 0 0
    Epi-Cardial Spain (Avellaner Cave) 5,000 5 1 20

    Interestingly, in SW Germany, home to the prototypical EEF, no mtDNA H has so far been found in LBK graves.

    Edit: I checked the Hungary data. While the main article is behind a paywall, the abstract reports "a remarkable genetic discontinuity" between early Neolithic and current populations in Hungary, just as Brotherton reports for the Elbe-Saale region. The Hungarians study concludes "It is worth further investigation as a non-descendant theory, instead of a continuous population history, supporting genetic gaps between ancient and recent human populations." Maybe someone with access to the full study wants to check for details..
    http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v5...g2011103a.html

  16. #66
    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.

    Timeline of the mtDNA structure of the Elbe-Saale region

    Based on the Ancestral Journeys data, I have compiled a time series on the pre-historic mtDNA structure of the Middle Elbe-Saale region for the periods investigated by Brotherton. Note that Ancestral Journeys counts close relatives, i.e. siblings or mother & child found in the same grave, as a single sample. As such, the number of samples for each period tends to be slightly lower than the numbers given in the Brotherton study, which appears to count each individual. Note also that in several cases, partially defective DNA did not allow to identify the specific subclade of mtDNA H.

    Rössen Schöningen Baalberge Salzmünde Bernburg Corded_Ware
    Bell_Beaker
    Unetice
    Locations
    4 1 5 1 1 6 7 6
    mtDNA HG n % n % n %
    n % n % n % n % n %
    HV0 2 13,3% 1 4,3% 1 5,9% 1 5.0%
    1 2,7% 2 5,0%
    V 1 6,7% 1 5.0%
    1 7,7% 1 2,5%
    H1 1 6,7% 2 8,7% 1 5,9% 1 7,7% 1 2,7% 2 7,7%
    H3 2 10.0%
    2 7,7% 2 5,0%
    H5 / H5b 2 13,3% 1 5.0%
    1 7,7% 1 2,7% 2 7,7%
    other H (rare/ extinct) 2 13,3% 2 8,7% 1 5,9% 4 10,8% 2 7,7% 5 12,5%
    H (no subclade) 3 17,6% 2 10.0%
    1 7,7% 4 10,8% 4 15,4% 2 5,0%
    Subtotal 8 53,3% 5 21,7% 6 35,3% 7 35.0%
    4 30,8% 11 29,7% 12 46,2% 12 30,0%
    U / K 3 20,0% 8 34,8% 2 11,8% 5 25.0%
    6 46,2% 14 37,8% 8 30,8% 13 32,5%
    I 1 2,7% 4 10,0%
    J 3 13,0% 1 5,9% 4 20.0% 2 5,4% 1 3,8% 1 2,5%
    T 2 13,3% 3 13,0% 5 29,4% 1 5.0% 1 7,7% 6 16,2% 3 11,5% 6 15,0%
    X 1 6,7% 1 4,3% 2 11,8% 1 5,0% 1 7,7% 2 5,4% 2 5,0%
    W 2 8,7% 1 7,7% 1 2,7% 2 7,7% 2 5,0%
    N1a1a 1 6,7% 1 4,3% 1 5,9% 2 10.0%
    Total 15 100% 23 100% 17 100% 20 100% 13 100% 37 100% 26 100% 40 100%
    Results on the Schöningen and Salzmünde cultures need to be treated with some caution, They relate to only one location, the Salzmünde plateau, which is characterised by specific, rather unusual burial habits. More on that in a subsequent post.

    Let me furthermore add that Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples in many cases stem from the same grave field and period, and have been assigned to the respective culture based on the specific artefacts that accompanied each burial. To a lesser extent, this also applies to Bell Beaker vs. Unetice. As such, the obvious genetic differences should be interpreted as signals of two separate cultures that simultaneously lived in the Elbe-Saale region. Their coexistence appears to have been relatively peaceful - in several cases, both cultures used existing megalithic graves from the Bernburg culture, and left older burials undisturbed. Brotherton's study clearly identifies the Bell Beakers as genetically Iberian that immigrated into the already existing Corded Ware / Globular Amphora culture. How sizeable that immigration has been is difficult to estimate. Overall, the Unetice mtDNA structure is more resembling the Corded Ware than the Bell Beaker structure, but certain BB lineages (e.g. H4) continue into the Unetice culture.

    The rarer H subclades for Corded Ware are H10e, H2a1, H6a1a and H4a1. H4a1 was a female from the period of CW/BB coexistence that shares all SNP markers with a somewhat younger BB sample from the same site. The other rare BB subclade is H13a1a2c. Rarer subclades for Unetice are H2a1a3, H4a1a1a2, H7h, H11a, and H82a. The Unetice H4a1a1a2 appears to be a descendant of the CW/BB H4a1 individuals (identical basic SNP markers, plus a few more recent mutations). It was found in the Eulau, grave some 100 km SE of Quedlinburg, where those other two H4a1 individuals were buried.

    Edit: Table corrected for Salzmünde. To maintain consistency with Brotherton's timeline, only Bell Beaker data from 2,500 BC onwards is included. An older BB grave (2,600-2,500 BC) from Kromsdorf / Thüringen shows a quite different genetic structure that is more in line with Corded Ware and, most notably, doesn't include mtDNA H. The respective study also reports a genetic break between the early and late Neolithic, in this case concerning sub-groups of mtDNA U5. The study identifies 8 agro-pastoralist, and 4 hunter-gatherer sub-groups of U5 that have been observed in ancient DNA but are extinct today. Outside the basal clades, only one sub-group of EEF U5 is still observed in present populations.
    http://www.academia.edu/1596369/Emer...ite_in_Germany
    Last edited by FrankN; 21-07-14 at 20:18. Reason: Tried to make the table better readable

  17. #67
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    As addendum to my previous post:
    mtDNA T up to Schöningen is exclusively T2; this also applies to the LBK samples from the region. Baalberge includes a single T1, Salzmünde and Bernburg are again excusively T2. Corded Ware has two T1 (5.4% of total) vs. four T2, for Bell Beakers it is 2:2. Among the Unetice samples there is only a single T1.

    In looking at the T data, I have realised that the table in my previous post may miss a few samples. Please wait with interpretation and comments until I have checked and updated the table.

  18. #68
    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 FrankN View Post
    As addendum to my previous post:
    mtDNA T up to Schöningen is exclusively T2; this also applies to the LBK samples from the region. Baalberge includes a single T1, Salzmünde and Bernburg are again excusively T2. Corded Ware has two T1 (5.4% of total) vs. four T2, for Bell Beakers it is 2:2. Among the Unetice samples there is only a single T1.

    In looking at the T data, I have realised that the table in my previous post may miss a few samples. Please wait with interpretation and comments until I have checked and updated the table.
    I see no correlation between Schöningen and the other 2 highly % T2 mtdna areas of North-east italy ( 19% ) and coastal Romania ( 14% )...............is there one?

    what was the german area! , the ancient WHG basin for deer hunters ?...................I thought the basin was near hamburg
    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.

  19. #69
    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



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    I see no correlation between Schöningen and the other 2 highly % T2 mtdna areas of North-east italy ( 19% ) and coastal Romania ( 14% )...............is there one?

    what was the german area! , the ancient WHG basin for deer hunters ?...................I thought the basin was near hamburg
    Well, the ancient German WHG basins are now called North Sea, but the surrounding hills were in fact close to Hamburg (and just where I grew up) - the Ahrensburg culture. But that was some 5,000 years before the time in question here.

    mtDNA T has apparently survived the last Ice Age somewhere near the Black Sea. Maciamo speaks about an Antatolian refuge; to me the distribution maps point more towards the Bessarabia / Crimea area (possibly lands a bit further south that in the meantime have been flooded). The earliest ancient mtDNA T dates to around 5,000 BC, and has been found in Russia, Ukraine, the Avellaner Cave in the Spanish Pyrenees, and LBK settlements in the Czech Republic, the Saale-Elbe region, and SW Germany (Stuttgart). Russian and Ukrainian samples contained both T1 and T2, the samples from further west were always T2.
    T2 is apparently linked to the spread of farming. It may have been first distributed by Mesolithic HGs across Europe, to be "picked up" by these early farmers, or it was from the beginning part of the EEF gene pool. In the second case, it has almost certainly expanded along the Danube, and LBK farmers carried it into the Elbe-Saale region and SW Germany (Problem here: How did it get into the Avellaner cave?). T2 is still quite frequent in the LBK "homeland" (the Budapest-Szombathely-Vienna triangle), and there are dozens of possibilities how it could have reached North-East Italy from there (Baden Culture, Illyrians, Celts, Romans, Goths, etc.).

    The much more interesting question is about the spread of T1, which so far hasn't been found among EEF, but is typically associated with Steppe cultures and the spread of Indo-Europeans. Since I assumed somebody might anyway ask for the T1/ T2 relation to speculate on IE incursions, I prepared and posted the respective count in advance. The bottom lines here are:
    1. T1 isn't present in large enough quantities to base much conclusions on its frequencies over time;
    2. The first appearance during the Baalberge Culture (early 4th millennium BC) predates the commonly assumed time line of IE expansion into Central Europe;
    3. Corded ware isn't any more likely to have spread T1 into the Elbe-Saale region than are the Bell Beakers, or population inflow down the Elbe from Bohemia / Moravia / Hungary.

  20. #70
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    While I am still reading more on Salzmünde, here already a video introduction:

    More videos on the excavations and subsequent analysis:
    http://www.sciencemovies.de/en/08_was_it_murder?c=3

    The burial practice appears less unusual as initially assumed - it is now also reported from a large Boleraz / Baden culture settlement at Lake Balaton in Hungary:
    http://www.academia.edu/2169947/Hall...d-Temetoi_dulo

  21. #71
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.

    Climate change during the Neolithic

    Apparently, while nobody has anything to comment, people are still reading, so I continue with putting together some puzzle pieces. Whether they get us closer to solving the question why, as Brotherton's study has found out, most of the early Central European farmers died out, and who replaced them when - I don't know yet.

    The European Neolithic experienced massive climate change. While after the end of the Ice Age, the climate had been similar to today, around 8,000 BC Europe got warmer and moister. By around 7,300 BC, average temperatures in Central and Northern Europe were some 0.5-2.5 °C higher than today. It is no coincidence that this climate optimum marks the beginning of the agricultural expansion from the Near East into Europe. Around 6,200 BC, the climate got markedly colder, but returned to the previous temperature levels around 6,000 BC. Furthermore, glacier melt had resulted in substantial sea level rise. Reduced glacier weight caused the underlying areas to rise, while those further away lost elevation. Combination of both factors resulted in flooding of the North Sea, the coastline of which reached today's West and East Frisian islands by around 6,000 BC. This also resulted in the Central European climate becoming more maritime, i.e. with milder winters and relatively humid springs and autumns. Nevertheless, overall higher temperatures are believed to have resulted in relatively long, hot summers, so the climate in the Middle-Elbe Saale region would have been more "Mediterranean", possibly comparable to today's climate in Hungary and Serbia. This second warm phase corresponds to the LBK expansion into Central Europe.

    The northern periphery of the Elbe-Saale region at that time looked quite different from today. Melt water from Scandinavian glaciers had created a giant freshwater lake, the Ancylus Lake, in the area of today's Baltic Sea. A land bridge extended from East Holstein via the Danish isles to Southern Sweden. Ancylus Lake was connected to the North Sea via the Svea river, Lake Vanern and the Göta river. Motala, where a 6,000 BC grave of HGs has been found (Lazarides' NHG, 6x mtDNA U5a*, plus one U2e1) is located slightly south of the eastern end of this outlet.


    During the 6th millennium BC, further sea-level rise caused the land bridge to break, gradually connecting the Ancylus lake to the North Sea - first as brackwater lake (Litorina Sea), then gradually developing into today's Baltic Sea. Recent investigations have clarified the timing and sequence of this transgression:http://www2008.io-warnemuende.de/doc...6-roessler.pdf
    New cores were drilled west and east of the Darss Sill, the Mecklenburg Bay and the Arkona Basin, to investigate the transition from the fresh water conditions of the Ancylus Lake to the marine-brackish conditions of the Littorina Sea in a high spatial and temporal resolution.In general, Arkona Basin sediments display more abrupt shifts in the proxy parameter at the transition from Ancylus Lake to Littorina Sea stage material than those from the Mecklenburg Bay. Radiocarbon dating on calcareous material indicates that marine waters entered the Mecklenburg Bay first at c. 7,500 14C yr BP and the Arkona Basin approximately 1,000 years later at c. 6,500 14C yr BP. These results therefore suggest a transgression pathway via the Great Belt into the Mecklenburg Bay and then into the Arkona Basin.
    In a yet not fully understood way, flooding of the North and Baltic Sea, and associated changes in Atlantic currents, had profound effects on the North-West European climate. A short global cooling around 5,200-5,100 BC is observable in Greenland ice cores and the Near East, but not in Scandinavia. It may, however, have affected areas further south. There is indication of late LBK societies as far apart as the Paris Basin, the middle Rhine, Saxony and Upper Austria reverting to ritualised cannibalism by the end of the 6th millennium, interpreted as symptom of a deep crisis that shook societies during the late LBK period.http://www.academia.edu/1403683/Cann...inate_Germany_

    Following a short recovery, temperatures on the northern hemisphere started to gradually decline from around 4,700 BC on due to a slight tilt in the earth axis. In addition, major volcanic eruptions (e.g. Mt. Hudson 4,750 BC, Kikai Caldera 4,400 BC) may have played a role. Some authors place the transition from the Atlantic to the Subboreal climate period here, others at 4,000 or even 3,710 BC. This again is related to obvious strong regional differentiation. Scandinavia, e.g., became only slightly cooler but substantially dryer after 4,800 BC (though volcanic winters around 4,400 are apparent), while Alpine glaciers start to grow, and sediment analysis from the upper and middle Vistula basins indicates a substantial increase in flooding frequency and intensity between 4,650 and 4,050 BC. This generally corresponds to the Central European archaeological record of post-LBK cultures (Rössen, Lengyel, Michelsberg etc.) having retreated from the river areas towards hill settlements. Forest coverage gradually decreases, possibly due to intensified pastoral and agricultural use.http://hol.sagepub.com/content/5/1/34.abstract

    Around 4,100 BC, Scandinavia gets much cooler (though still 1°C warmer than today) and slightly wetter, and Central Europe warmer and dryer again. Possibly triggered by two major volcanic eruptions (Masaya, Pago), around the turn of the 4th millennium Central Europe enters a cool and dry phase that lasts for around 300 years, and corresponds to massive deforestation. Swiss glaciers grow to an extent similar to the 16/17th century "little ice-age".

    By around 3,650 BC, Central Europe and Scandinavia revert to a warmer and wetter climate. The African humid period in the Sahara, however, comes to an end, and the Aegean encounters one-hundred years of drought. While climatic patterns apparently vary, it is tempting to speculate that this drought could also have affected the northern Black Sea, and played a role in the replacement of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture by the Yamna culture around 3,500 BC.
    The last major climate change in the period in question here was the Piora cold period between 3,200 and 2,900 BC. Alpine glaciers grew suddenly and massively, and the Eifel (NW Germany) saw a sudden drop of average temperature by 1°C, coupled with milder winters and increasing precipitation. Flooding frequency on the Vistula increased. Elsewhere, the water level of the Dead Sea rose by 100m, some historians also link the fall of Uruk in Mesopotamia to this climatic anomaly. Scandinavia again appears to have been hardly affected. Note that the Salzmünde culture, with its specific burial practices that may have included human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism falls into this period. http://www.eupedia.com/forum/newrepl...treply&t=30209

    After the end of the Piora cold phase, Central Europe seems to have enjoyed a relatively stable climate similar, though slightly warmer to the one today that lasted until around 1,800 BC, with temperatures gradually decreasing and precicipation / flooding increasing after 2,500 BC.
    The diagram below displays cyclical temperature changes in the Atlantic (Bond cycles), the red is the temperature read from Greenland ice core. Yellow lines mark the different cycles, but they also correspond pretty well to our understanding of historic phase. Note the Greenland temperature drops around 5,200 BC (LBK crisis), 3,700BC (Aegean drought) and 3,200 BC (Piora cold period).


    Further reading (nice diagrams):http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm
    http://www.academia.edu/3584928/Mens...it_und_Zukunft

  22. #72
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,320
    Points
    34,830
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,830, Level: 57
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 620
    Overall activity: 13.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by FrankN View Post
    I have looked a bit deeper in the Rössen results reported by Ancestral Journeys. For the Elbe-Saale region, ancient mtDNA is available from four locations. Two of them (Hettstedt-Oberwietderstedt, and Wittmar near Wolfenbüttel) have a >=50% share of mtDNA H/HV0 (5 out of 9 samples in Oberwiederstedt, 2 out of 4 in Wittmar). The locations are 90 km distant from each other. From each of the two other locations (Halberstadt, Esperstedt) there is only one sample available. Halberstadt is V, Esperstedt T2e. If we take all those 15 samples, we get the following distribution of mtDNA:

    mtDNA HG
    n %
    HV0 2 13.3 %
    V 1 6.7 %
    H1 1 6.7 %
    H5 / H5b 2 13.3 %
    other H (rare/ extinct) 2 13.3 %
    Subtotal H/V/HV0
    8
    53.3%
    U5b / K 3 20.0%
    T2 2 13.3%
    X2c 1 6,7%
    N1a1a 1 6,7%
    Total 15 100 %

    I don't have an explanation for the results yet. Hettstedt-Oberwiederstedt (silver, copper) and Wittmar (salt) are historical mining towns, but that doesn't apply to Halberstadt, where one mtDNA V sample was found. I think, for the time being, we have to accept the fact that the Elbe-Saale region, btw, the so-far best sampled European region, displays elevated frequencies of mtDNA H/V/HV0 during the middle of the 5th millennium BC.

    I checked the Ancestral Journeys' data for other samples from that period:

    • Tisza Culture (Hungary), 5,000-4.500 BC: 67% mtDNA H (2 out of 3 samples)
    • Trentino / South Tirol, 4.500-4,000 BC: 50% mtDNA H (1 out of 2)
    • St. Pau de Camp (Spain), 4,250-3,750 BC: 33% mtDNA H (1 out of 3)
    • Navarre (Spain), 4,185-3,185 BC: 39% mtDNA H/HV (9 out of 23)
    • Verteba Cave (Ukraine), 4th millennium BC: 67% mtDNA H/HV (4 out of 6)
    • Gokhem (Sweden), 3,500-2,500 BC: 50% mtDNA H (3 out of 6)


    Opposite to what Aberdeen claims, to me this looks like quite a pan-European pattern (of course with temporal variation).
    the problem is that
    1- a lot of places lack serious sample
    2- we're mixing here in the same bag different mt DNA H with different points of diffusion even if their far origin is the same (as for all Europeans!) - a survey about the current mt H in Europe and Eurasia shows a big difference in within distributions of mt-H

  23. #73
    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



    The Brotherton study is actually a sequel, and, as all sequels, difficult to understand if you have missed the previous part (and it is not recalled in the introduction). In 2012, Christine Adler, one of Haak's students and co-author of the Brotherton paper, had amended the set of previously known ancient DNA from the Elbe-Saale region, and compared the mtDNA structure of LBK, Rössen, BB, Corded Ware and Unetice samples with the structure found today in Central Europe (Germans, Poles, Austrians, Swiss, Czech?, Slovaks?, Hungarians?). She concluded:
    http://www.academia.edu/3306830/Anci...12._PhD_thesis
    Population continuity from the introduction of agriculture in the Early Neolithic until today was found to be an unlikely model of demographic history (..) Internal population changes in Europe between the Early Neolithic and Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age appear to have contributed substantially to the population structure of extant Central Europeans, as all the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Agecultures examined (Bell Beakers, Corded Ware or Unetice) were found to be more
    likely ancestors of modern Central Europeans than either of the Early Neolithic cultures (LBK and Rössen) investigated. Haplogroup distributions suggest that Palaeolithic mtDNA haplogroups which were infrequent in the Early Neolithic, such as haplogroups H and U, became more frequent during the Late Neolithic. (..)
    The frequency of haplogroup N1a decreases (..) from 25% among the LBK and 10% among the Rössen culture to 0% in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age cultures The frequency of N1a haplogroup remains extremely rare (0.2%) in modern Central European populations.
    The study had two shortcomings:
    1. mtDNA H had not been broken down into sub-clades. For its high overall share among Bell Beakers as well as in extant populations, statistical models pointed at the Bell Beakers being the most important contribution to Central Europe's current population structure, a result that contradicts the archaeological record.
    2. The middle Neolithic, i.e. the 3rd millennium BC, had not been covered. This made it impossible to determine when and in which stages the EEF (LBK) mtDNA structure had been so profoundly overturned.

    The Brotherton study has obviously aimed at overcoming these shortcomings, and delivered the following results:

    1. Bell Beakers have contributed to the extant Central European mtDNA diversity, but weren't a major factor. More specifically, they are not required to explain the substantial presence of H1, H3, and H5 in current Central Europeans, though they contributed H5a.
    2. Transition to the extant Central European mtDNA structure, i.e. of dominating mtDNA H sub-clades, occurred already in the Rössen (H5), Baalberge (H7) and Salzmünde (H3) cultures. Corded Ware contributed H1b (secondary peak in Elbe-Saale region), H2 (peak in Germany reported elsewhere, but not seen in the Brotherton data), H4 and H6. Basal H1 had already been introduced by the LBK. In that sense, I think for mtDNA H it is fair to state that the main shift occurred in the mid-Neolithic, with further contributions from BB and Corded Ware.

    Looking at other major mtDNA hgs:
    • J was introduced by the LBK. Fluctuations appear to be mostly statistical noise, overall its share appears to have remained rather constant.
    • I was introduced by Corded Ware.
    • K and HV/V have already been present during the LBK. They retreated to their current frequencies of 5-10% during the Schöningen (HV/V) and Baalberge (K) cultures, respectively.
    • N1a1a, which made up 12% of unrelated LBK samples, disappears together with the Salzmünde culture (3,300-3,100 BC).
    • T2 (17% share in LBK) retreats to current levels with the Salzmünde culture. T1 first appears with the Baalberge culture.
    • (Mesolithic) U5b was boosted with the post-Nordic TRB Bernburg culture, but at its current level with Corded Ware. Corded Ware newly introduced U5a and U4. In this context, it should be noted that local archaeologists interprete Bernburg, Corded Ware and Bell Beakers as overlapping, partly contemporary cultures that are distinguished by burial style and the ceramics found therein. During the early copper age, the Elbe-Saale region was literally multi-cultural. Differing DNA structures reflect this and shouldn't be interpreted as population replacement (though the subsequent Unetice culture allows some judgement on which cultures/ genes ultimately prevailed).
    • W was already present in the LBK (5%) and has been regularly found thereafter if sampling size was large enough.
    • X wasn't present in LBK samples, but has from the Rössen culture onwards been more or less constantly found at low levels.


    So, let's do the math on all other hgs based on Maciamo's list of current mtDNA frequencies per country (for simplification, I restrict myself to Germany):
    1. LBK: HV/V (4.5%) + J (9%) + K (6.6%) + T2 (7.8%) + W (1.7) = 29.6%
    2. Mid-Neolithic: T1 (2.8%) + U2/5b/8 (6%?) + X (1.3%) = 10.1%
    3. Corded ware: I (2.1%) + U4 (2.9%) + U5a (4%?) = 9%
    4. Unallocated: L (0.3%) + U3 (1.1%) + other U (0.6%) + others (4.5%) = 6.5%

    In fact, it seems the paper has played down Corded Ware a bit too much. Still, the conclusion remains that the Neolithic revolution, even when H1 is added to the figure above, can explain less than 40% of Germany's current genetic diversity. A lot of things have happened afterwards, especially during the middle Neolithic that so far has received little attention in this respect.

  24. #74
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    I have come across a highly interesting paper that may help to shed some more light on Brotherton's findings:
    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/13...comms3486.html
    We show that, in contrast to the steady population growth usually assumed, the introduction of agriculture into Europe was followed by a boom-and-bust pattern in the density of regional populations. We demonstrate that summed calibrated radiocarbon date distributions and simulation can be used to test the significance of these demographic booms and busts in the context of uncertainty in the radiocarbon date calibration curve and archaeological sampling. We report these results for Central and Northwest Europe between 8,000 and 4,000 cal. BP and investigate the relationship between these patterns and climate. However, we find no evidence to support a relationship. Our results thus suggest that the demographic patterns may have arisen from endogenous causes, although this remains speculative.
    Here are the demographic trends they have produced for various regions (you might want to check the study itself for larger pictures, the Supplementary Materials include higher-resolution graphs for each region). The dotted lines display a hypothetical steady growth, blue arrows mark the onset of farming. Significant (p>0.95) deviations from the "steady growth scenario" are marked in red (overpopulation) and light blue (underpopulation), respectively.


    While I highly appreciate their work, I have a few, minor technical issues with it, which I feel need to be considered when looking at their diagrams:
    1. The population estimates have been extrapolated from archaeological findings. There is reason to assume that HGs and EFs concentrate on the coasts (fishery, trade contact, fertile marshland etc.). Considerable amount of coastland, especially along the North Sea and the English Channel, has of course been flooded in the meantime, and submarine archaeology is still in its beginnings. As such, I think that their diagrams for Jutland, possibly also Northern Germany, Wessex/Sussex, the Danish Isles and Paris Basin/ Normandy, tend to underestimate population densities before 5,000-4,500 BC. Early increases prior to the onset of farming may reflect re-location from flooded areas to higher ground that is better covered archaeologically.
    2. Some of their sub-regions could have been delineated better. Specifically, "Central Germany", which is essentially the Elbe-Saale region, extends too far north into the plains and covers areas that weren't neolithisised by LBK, but only during the Funnelbeaker period (Altmark etc.). As such, the neolithisation push there doesn't become apparent. The upper Weser & Westphalia have culturally always been linked more to the Rhine than the Elbe, and would have been better placed with the Rhineland (Michelsberger Culture) than with Central Germany. As the area is somewhat a Neolithic late-comer (early 5th millennium), here again the EEF population push on the Elbe-Saale gets underestimated, that in the Rhineland exaggerated. "Southern Germany" includes the upper Rhine and Alsace; a split between the Rhine and Danube basins could have been more appropriate here.
    3. The climate-related analysis is exclusively using data from the Atlantic (Greenland, Ireland, Norway etc.). There is substantial indication that flooding of the North and Baltic Seas affected the Central European and Mediterranean climates and de-coupled them from NW European climates (see my post further above). As such, I question the validity of their finding of no relationship between population patterns and climate as concerns Rhone-Languedoc, Southern and Central Germany. Note also that they actually have found a statistically significant relation between North Atlantic water temperatures and demographic patterns for the Paris Basin, the Rhineland, and Jutland.

    I will zoom in onto the Elbe-Saale region in the next post. For the time being, let me point out some general patterns:
    A. Migration seems to be apparent in several cases: Paris Basin->Ireland and Rhineland->England around 6,200 BP, Rhineland->Southern Germany around 6,200 and 5,200 BP, Scania/ Danish Isles/ Jutland->Northern & Central Germany around 5,500 BP, Scotland/ Ireland->Wessex/Sussex at about the same time. I am sure more of such migrations can be detected. Here, it would of course have been nice if the study had also covered Bohemia, Silesia and the Polish lowlands.

    B. The onset Bronze Age brings about substantial population shifts from about 3,500 BC (brownish arrow). Most regions encounter substantial population declines. Exceptions are Ireland (copper mining?), Southern England (Cornish tin) and Central Germany (Harz copper, Erzgebirge tin). Unfortunately, we don't have demographic information for Brittany, Northern Iberia, and the Central/Eastern Alps (Tyrolia & Mondsee copper), but I would assume substantial population growth there as well. Jutland is holding up surprisingly well, which might indicate substantial maritime trade and east-west connections (British tin to the Mediterranean via the Baltics & Vistula/Dnieper?, Batic amber?).


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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