Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 81

Thread: Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers

  1. #26
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-02-10
    Posts
    137
    Points
    10,074
    Level
    30
    Points: 10,074, Level: 30
    Level completed: 21%, Points required for next Level: 476
    Overall activity: 5.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c1

    Ethnic group
    Appalachian American
    Country: USA - West Virginia



    Are subclades for the mtDNA haplogroups accessible from the raw data? I'm particularly interested in J and K.

  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 Maciamo View Post
    Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

    These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

    1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

    2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.

    I*'s hasn't been found just hg I which couldn't be tested for many downstream SNPs. I'm not sure if you knew that PWC hunter gatherer Ajv52 had I or I2a2a1.

  3. #28
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    16-02-14
    Location
    Regina
    Posts
    254
    Points
    1,772
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,772, Level: 11
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1a2a1a L233
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c3

    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: Canada



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though


  4. #29
    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 motzart View Post
    there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though
    From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

    Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)
    Be wary of people who tend to glorify the past, underestimate the present, and demonize the future.

  5. #30
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    16-02-14
    Location
    Regina
    Posts
    254
    Points
    1,772
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,772, Level: 11
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1a2a1a L233
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c3

    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: Canada



    Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.

    I disagree with the posters on this site who now think that the spread of I1 into Scandinavia and I2 in the Balkans represent an expansion with Neolithic farming because then we would see larger amounts of G2a wherever we find I1 or I2 and this is not the case. Nor do we see any evidence of farmers mixing with HGs based on the mtDNA. I believe that the EEF we see in Scandinavians from the Lazaridis study was probably brought with the R1b migration there.

  6. #31
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,270
    Points
    68,877
    Level
    81
    Points: 68,877, Level: 81
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 873
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c1 PF3892+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    quite a broad definition of F*
    which one is most common among todays Europeans?
    isn't that F2?
    As far as I know, none of F1, F2, or F3 are common among Europeans. F1-P91 is pretty much Sri Lankan, F2-M427 is pretty much Lahu (although it may have been found in a Swedish Pitted Ware sample--or that could have been a false positive), and F3-M481 is pretty much Indian. H2-P96, which used to be called F3-P96 before its relationship with H was established, is my guess for what these samples were.

  7. #32
    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



    Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

    It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.

  8. #33
    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 LeBrok View Post
    From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

    Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)
    I doubt there was sex biased on hunter-farmer mixing. Sometimes hunters and farmers had sex, and I doubt the hunter was usually the male and the farmer usually the female, it was just random. Maybe I'm making it to simplistic, I don't know. Modern European mtDNA and Y DNA has obviously gone under serious drift multiple times which makes it hard to predict ancestry percentages(80% farmer maternal lineages for Balts, but under 30% farmer ancestry) and relatedness based on big haplogroup percentages(like 40% H), and these early Neolithic samples are from a time of admixture and before drift, so it's very interesting to see the results, the Starčevo are the oldest Neolithic Euro mt and Y samples yet and it seems they had much less WHG than later farmers.

  9. #34
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,233
    Points
    41,216
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,216, Level: 62
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 434
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

    It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.
    there is something strange about G2a
    they seem to have been very succesfull at the early neolithic, being represented in 2 branches : cardium pottery (PF3146 ?) and LBK
    yet the only succesfull branch today seems to be P303, which may represent Maykop

    I1 did a much better job alltough expansion started very late

  10. #35
    Banned Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    16-02-14
    Location
    Regina
    Posts
    254
    Points
    1,772
    Level
    11
    Points: 1,772, Level: 11
    Level completed: 74%, Points required for next Level: 78
    Overall activity: 21.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a1a2a1a L233
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1c3

    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: Canada



    No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.

  11. #36
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,689
    Points
    681,929
    Level
    100
    Points: 681,929, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 7.0%


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



    Quote Originally Posted by LeBrok View Post
    From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

    Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)
    What could have happened is that some I1 hunter-gatherers copied the farming techniques of their G2a neighbours in Hungary, or that a group of I1 warriors invaded some G2a villages, killed off (most of) the men and took the women for them (or raped them). There descendants would have been mostly I1 men with Near Eastern or Balkanic mtDNA. This new hybrid generation could then have grown and prospered and developed into the LBK culture. That would make sense since LBK mtDNA is overwhelmingly East Mediterranean, while I1 appears to have colonised Germany and Scandinavia late, considering that none of the Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia or Germany/Luxembourg were I1 so far.
    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.

  12. #37
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,689
    Points
    681,929
    Level
    100
    Points: 681,929, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 7.0%


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



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by motzart View Post
    Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.
    Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

    The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

    It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

    It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.

  13. #38
    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



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

    The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

    It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

    It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.
    While I support most of your post, I cannot see J2 and T involved in metal work. My take is because T in anatolia, Levant, Egypt, africa and arabian peninsula is all too young ....there is a gap of 30000 years from origin of T to any of these areas I noted.
    I believe T formed around Azeri lands near caspian sea, they were mostly fishermen/hunters ( lezkins) , moved into North Caucasus as you say, and mostly spread around as hunters, that's why the huge dispersal of T and that's why no bones are found for T.....hunters cannot bury themselves. Otzi ,a hunter was only found due to the ice. Farmers bury or cremate the dead.

    It would be interesting to see what % increase there would be for T if all pre-2008 papers looked into the found K ydna . It might change opinions.

    J2, IMO formed In the south side of the zargos mountains around mesopotamia, are farmers and I cannot see an earlier migration into the north caucasus.

    I would like to know why or how T, G, I, H, L and J sat in the caucasus waiting 40000 years for the creation of R to join them...........seems illogical that people sat around that long in that period of history
    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.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Achievements:
    OverdriveVeteranThree Friends25000 Experience Points
    Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,161
    Points
    38,812
    Level
    60
    Points: 38,812, Level: 60
    Level completed: 81%, Points required for next Level: 238
    Overall activity: 53.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by motzart View Post
    No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.
    with termination wiped out, you mean by force? excluding diseases? or diseases are included.

    for example afrodisiac diseases killed more Europeans than American Indians did,
    and Alchool more Indians than settlers did.
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  15. #40
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    20-11-12
    Posts
    577
    Points
    3,220
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,220, Level: 16
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 230
    Overall activity: 19.0%


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Robert6 View Post
    Figure 4. Genetic distance map of the STA-LBK Y chromosomal data.
    Y chromosomal genetic distances (Fst) were computed between the STA-LBK samples and 100 present-day
    populations of Eurasia and North Africa and visualized on a geographic map. Grey dots denote the
    location of present-day populations. Color shadings indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of
    Neolithic samples to the modern-day populations. Short distances and great similarities to present-day
    populations are marked by red areas. Fst values were scaled by an interval range of 0.01. Fst values higher
    than 0.21 were not differentiated (grey areas). The map shows remarkable affinities of the STA-LBK
    Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 4, 201436
    samples to present-day populations of the northwest and south Caucasus. Population information and Fst
    values are listed in table S15.
    that looks a lot like the current map of hg G: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...f-haplogroup-G

  16. #41
    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



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo View Post
    What could have happened is that some I1 hunter-gatherers copied the farming techniques of their G2a neighbours in Hungary, or that a group of I1 warriors invaded some G2a villages, killed off (most of) the men and took the women for them (or raped them). There descendants would have been mostly I1 men with Near Eastern or Balkanic mtDNA. This new hybrid generation could then have grown and prospered and developed into the LBK culture. That would make sense since LBK mtDNA is overwhelmingly East Mediterranean, while I1 appears to have colonised Germany and Scandinavia late, considering that none of the Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia or Germany/Luxembourg were I1 so far.
    Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    13-07-14
    Posts
    309
    Points
    2,363
    Level
    13
    Points: 2,363, Level: 13
    Level completed: 72%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0%


    Country: Russian Federation



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    there is something strange about G2a
    they seem to have been very succesfull at the early neolithic, being represented in 2 branches : cardium pottery (PF3146 ?) and LBK
    yet the only succesfull branch today seems to be P303, which may represent Maykop
    In west Caucasus among Adyghe people you will find only G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ and G2a1a
    G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ is 2700-3000 years old, and there are no other subclades of G2a3b1 P303 among them.
    And only some branches of haplogroup J2 are old enough among Adyghe people, reaching ages of 5500 and 5200 years old.
    I think that Maykop people were mostly J2

  18. #43
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,233
    Points
    41,216
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,216, Level: 62
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 434
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Sile View Post
    While I support most of your post, I cannot see J2 and T involved in metal work. My take is because T in anatolia, Levant, Egypt, africa and arabian peninsula is all too young ....there is a gap of 30000 years from origin of T to any of these areas I noted.
    I believe T formed around Azeri lands near caspian sea, they were mostly fishermen/hunters ( lezkins) , moved into North Caucasus as you say, and mostly spread around as hunters, that's why the huge dispersal of T and that's why no bones are found for T.....hunters cannot bury themselves. Otzi ,a hunter was only found due to the ice. Farmers bury or cremate the dead.

    It would be interesting to see what % increase there would be for T if all pre-2008 papers looked into the found K ydna . It might change opinions.

    J2, IMO formed In the south side of the zargos mountains around mesopotamia, are farmers and I cannot see an earlier migration into the north caucasus.

    I would like to know why or how T, G, I, H, L and J sat in the caucasus waiting 40000 years for the creation of R to join them...........seems illogical that people sat around that long in that period of history
    there is a gap of 2-3000 years between the 1st neolithic wave and the arrival of IE people in Europe

    there was 2nd neolithic wave : http://www.nature.com/news/archaeolo...lution-1.13471

    the 2nd wave brought J and T IMO, they were not farming the land, they were herders, but also farmers adapted the milk economy : Lyengel , TRB , British neolithic , ..

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,233
    Points
    41,216
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,216, Level: 62
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 434
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.
    expansion of I1 must have come after LBK :

    1/ I1 expansion is estimated only 4300 years ago
    2/ if I1 expanded during LBK , why did G2a not expand at the same rate ; I1 was only a small minority among G2a in LBK

  20. #45
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Most Popular
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,233
    Points
    41,216
    Level
    62
    Points: 41,216, Level: 62
    Level completed: 67%, Points required for next Level: 434
    Overall activity: 10.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Robert6 View Post
    In west Caucasus among Adyghe people you will find only G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ and G2a1a
    G2a3b1a1b1 L1264+ is 2700-3000 years old, and there are no other subclades of G2a3b1 P303 among them.
    And only some branches of haplogroup J2 are old enough among Adyghe people, reaching ages of 5500 and 5200 years old.
    I think that Maykop people were mostly J2
    you mean G2a1a P16 1/P16 2 ?

  21. #46
    Great Adventurer Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Awards:
    Arm of Law
    sparkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-02-11
    Location
    California
    Posts
    2,270
    Points
    68,877
    Level
    81
    Points: 68,877, Level: 81
    Level completed: 49%, Points required for next Level: 873
    Overall activity: 16.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2c1 PF3892+ (Swiss)
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U4a (Cornish)

    Ethnic group
    3/4 Colonial American, 1/8 Cornish, 1/8 Welsh
    Country: USA - California



    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for.
    "Data Supplements" > "Supplementary datasets 1-17" > "S5"

    You can see that the I1 sample was positive for M89 (F), M170 (I), and M253 (I1) but negative for M438 (I2). No downstream I1 SNPs were tested. IJ was not tested.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.
    I don't think that I1-DF29 is old enough to be around since the Mesolithic. DF29 represents the primary modern expansion of I1 but it seems to have happened to the north somewhere, since it includes the main subclades of West, East, and North Germanic peoples (Z58, Z63, and L22). I'm guessing that if this ancient sample had been tested for these SNPs, it would have been negative for all of them. If we're supposing that the ancient sample is closer to the true origin of I1, then that means that the I1 of today is mostly from a young displaced branch, while the old I1 branches went extinct (as far as we can tell from samples we have so far). Actually, that scenario would tie up some loose ends, like why modern I1 appears so young, and why Eastern Europe has no native haplogroup that appears to date to the Mesolithic like I2 does in Western and Central Europe. I'm not ready to commit to the hypothesis with only one sample, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fire Haired14 View Post
    It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.
    Could it be that hunters and hunters-turned-farmers were more likely to be pushed to the north than migrant farmers, and northerners would later experience population expansion at the expense of southerners? Probably too simplistic an explanation, but that could be one of the many effects to contribute to the pattern we see.

  22. #47
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,305
    Points
    34,401
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,401, Level: 57
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 1,049
    Overall activity: 33.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    what strikes me is the Maykop culture area with lowest fst values
    i suppose they are not ancestral to STA-LBK culture
    does it mean STA-LBK and Maykop have the same genetic origin ?
    I lack details but some studies about metric and non-metric traits on skulls and teeth concluded the types of Armenians Highland population was common among AND the North Caucasus ancient populations (Pre-Br and Bronze Age) AND the Cucuteni-Trypillian populations, these types were found too among the supposed I-Ean cultures of the Steppes at same time, but attenuated as distance augmented - "Neolithic" or "bronze age" is a poor adjective to identifygenetically these populations because the regions and their populations which produced, apparently, agriculture are the same which produced diverses stages of metallurgy!

  23. #48
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    70
    Posts
    4,305
    Points
    34,401
    Level
    57
    Points: 34,401, Level: 57
    Level completed: 13%, Points required for next Level: 1,049
    Overall activity: 33.0%

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

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    I add I regreat ancien anthropology because it was focalized on superficial traits (and typology) which inabled to differenciate cousin or sister (close) populations in a way very more precise than can do autosomals studies or distances metric modern comparisons, sometime confusing - it's true that genetical heritability of some features are in discussuin but I think the exercice was of some worth, nevertheless, when added to other ways of investigation.
    a survey and compilation of ancient works concludes there were changes in people features at the beginning of Neolithic in the Balkans (around Donau river,in Serbia and Croatia (with the eternal considerations of new types and crossings opposed to in situ evolution: evolution I find a bit rapid, all that is new official science like the "no-move-theories" in archeology - we know now what value this last theory has) - the old science said that two population among local HGs existed at first: one almost "pure" cromagnoid, the other a mix of cromagnoids and brunnoid types (I have to find it back) whan Neolithic send a pannel of so called mediterranoid subtypes, what is not too surprising - crossings appeared a few later, if I don't mistake-
    the apparition of brachycephally in Armenia and North Mesopotamia ddin't precede the 2000's BC according to old scholars: what would be their aurosomals and haplo's today affiliation? I wonder... the same phenomenon appeared (in less)in the steppes almost at the same time: from Carpathians or from East Caspian??? it would be interesting concerning the metal ages and the I-Ean question knowing what other means of rechearch could tell us about all that???

  24. #49
    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 bicicleur View Post
    there is a gap of 2-3000 years between the 1st neolithic wave and the arrival of IE people in Europe

    there was 2nd neolithic wave : http://www.nature.com/news/archaeolo...lution-1.13471

    the 2nd wave brought J and T IMO, they were not farming the land, they were herders, but also farmers adapted the milk economy : Lyengel , TRB , British neolithic , ..
    Have you read the June 2014 Karafet papers?

    Its, states IIRC, GHIJTLNO formed within 6000 years of each other , and P formed in modern Malaysia .........R and Q came from this P and R-207 has 8% in Java, Borneo etc....there is nearly 30000 years between this GHIJTL group and the creation of R.
    Why would this west-asian/southasian group that formed in and around Iran , Pakistan and India wait 30000 years for R ?

    Below is the new age of markers from July 2014 as what is now accepted


    I am not saying all the main R formed in South-East Asia...I am saying the wait time for creation of R makes no sense for the other markers to wait around and do nothing

    K' = the new K1 which is T and L
    K'' = the new K2a which is N and O
    and R and Q belong to K2b

  25. #50
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    14,769
    Points
    243,705
    Level
    100
    Points: 243,705, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aberdeen View Post
    Given how much knowledge is required in order to successfully farm and to care for livestock, I'd bet on a peaceful scenario where the more numerous but peaceful farmers traded goods with the more war-like but less numerous hunter/gatherer types and gradually introduced them to farming techniques so that the hunter/gatherer types wouldn't be tempted to hunt their livestock. And, although it's difficult for those of us living in a world of billions of people to wrap our heads around the idea of "not enough people", a small population that was expanding into fertile territory might have been willing to take in any outsiders who wanted to join them. And some of the hunter/gatherers might have envied the food security of the farmers and decided to join them rather than raid them. The Y haplotype I1 that was found could have been a fluke for all we know, but now that I'm thinking about it from that angle, it really does seem to me that it's very difficult to explain the rapid rise of I1 unless I1 people did adopt agriculture fairly early on. The I1 folk appear to have expanded north, for whatever reason, and perhaps that saved them from whatever happened to the G2 farmers.

    I agree for the most part. From everything in recent papers about the culture of the foragers at the time of the Neolithic transition, they were not the mobile mammoth hunters of the popular imagination. Rather, whether it was the people living around the Danube Gorges, in Germany (Bollongino et al) or in Gotland, they seem to have been relatively sedentary fisher folk. More like the Indians of the Pacific northwest than the Dakota. (See Boric et al about mobility at this period: Our study unequivocally proves that in the earliest phases of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe, perhaps paradoxically, farming communities were much more mobile than local foraging populations, which in the case of the Danube Gorges remained tied to the exploitation of particular ecological niches since the beginning of the Holocene up until ∼6200 cal B.C. ")

    According to the same paper, there seems to have been some absorption of local hunter gatherers,at least in the Danube Gorges area. We also know that from the fact that some samples found in a Neolithic context in Hungary were I1, and in other Neolithic contexts were I2a.

    From the paper: "Strontium isotope ratios indicate a dramatic increase in the numbers of nonlocal, first-generation migrants buried in this region at two sites—Lepenski Vir and Ajmana—during the course of Mesolithic–Neolithic transformations in the Danube Gorges (∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C.) in the sample of 25 securely dated individuals from three sites. This trend continues into the period of the Early/Middle Neolithic after ∼6000/5950 cal B.C. in the sample of 26 securely dated individuals from two sites. Strontium isotope ratios associated with individuals dated to these periods occur outside both the upper and lower boundaries of the defined local strontium range (Figs. 2 and 3), suggesting at least two or more geologically distinct regions of origin for these incomers."

    A change in culture is dramatically apparent not only in the old Mesolithic settlements like Lepinski Vir, but, of course, in the totally new centers established by the newcomers.The authors conclude that "this pattern could be interpreted as suggesting a reciprocal mating network between the Danube Gorges foragers and the earliest farming communities in the surrounding areas, with largely nonlocal women being buried at the central forager site of Lepenski Vir during these phases."

    They further go on to state that "important changes were taking place in these forager societies that came under pressure from the growing Neolithic presence in the adjacent areas after ∼6200 cal B.C. (14, 16, 17). This process of asymmetrical acculturation ended up in a complete absorption of forager specificity in the first several centuries of the sixth millennium B.C."

    Furthermore, they state that...As for the Danube Gorges foragers, judging by, at first, a rather organic appropriation and incorporation of new elements of social and material existence as well as biologically “new blood” into the existing modes of being, and, consequently, the abandonment of forager cultural specificity, the mentioned process might have had a predominantly positive connotation or at least represented the only viable solution in the face of the emerging demographics."

    That isn't to say that violence didn't occur;the authors also document the discovery of a couple of severed heads. However, the transition seems to have been relatively peaceful.

    Given this model, how then are we to make sense of the mtdna findings from the site in Hungary which is the subject of this thread? In Hungary, at least, the U5 lineages which the scholars have been associating with the Mesolithic fisher/foragers form only 10% of the total. Does that mean the wife exchanges were asymmetrical? I don't know. Perhaps forager women, totally foreign to the Neolithic lifestyle, would not have been the first choice for a Neolithic village, while a farmer mate could provide a source of technological expertise in the forager communities? Or, perhaps it was simply a case where the Neolithic farmers just outbred them.

    Also, I think we have to keep in mind that the I1 and even the I2a forager lineages are decidedly in the minority. So perhaps we have to think in terms of some absorption of the foragers, but it might be that the majority of them were pushed further to the northeast. There is an analogy in what happened to the North American Indians.

    Finally, I think that one has to keep in mind the papers which have argued for a major population crash in central Europe, a population crash which didn't affect southern Europe. How many of the LBK (and related cultures) people remained to encounter the "Indo-Europeans" I don't know, nor do I know the autosomal make-up of this third wave. I would be very surprised, however, if they didn't carry a large EEF component themselves.
    Last edited by Angela; 06-09-14 at 00:00.


    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

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •