What is the main haplogroup of Cucuteni-Trypillian (Tripolye) culture?

Pick main hg of Cucuteni.

  • E1b1b

    Votes: 5 7.1%
  • G2a

    Votes: 27 38.6%
  • I1

    Votes: 5 7.1%
  • I2

    Votes: 38 54.3%
  • J1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • J2

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • N1c

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • Q

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • R1a

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • R1b

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • T

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Total voters
    70
E-M78 might still have reached Greece and the Balkans by the Mesolithic, even if they followed the Levant coast from northeastern Africa via Egypt.

Bulgaria could well be on the cards too
 
EV-13 having such a different distribution from the other E clades due to it being a Paleolithic/Mesolithic HG group would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that we now have E groups in Lengyel and Sopot farming cultures in Balkans and Central Europe. If these turn out to be EV-13, then the HG theory would be rendered asinine. What surprises me is the Bronze Age expansion dating from TMRCA analysis.The valid theories so far are 1) A Neolithic expansion from Western Asia (probably from Cardial Ware). This is supported by the fact that it's found in Spain, and western Croatia/Hungary, if the new samples are proven to be EV13. These places match well the expansion of the Cardial Ware movements. We also have to keep in mind that most archaeologists propose TWO independent farming movements into Europe. So here could lie the EV13-J/G dichotomy. 2) A HG marker from Mesolithic times (N. Africa?). This is supported by the marker's relative scarcity in farming sites, and would gather more fuel if the Lengyel and Sopot samples are a different type of E.3) An Indo-Europeanized farmer group from Cucuteni that expanded into the Balkans during the Bronze Age (along with J2). These could have been the linguistic pre-cursors to the Hellenes, Phrygians, Thraco-Illyrians, etc... and would maybe explain the lack of the Volga-Yamna component in these IE speaking areas. This is supported by the very young TMRCA analysis that pinpoints to a Bronze Age expansion, it's distribution in European only areas, and IE speaking Middle Eastern places like Kurdistan.
 
EV-13 having such a different distribution from the other E clades due to it being a Paleolithic/Mesolithic HG group would make sense, if it wasn't for the fact that we now have E groups in Lengyel and Sopot farming cultures in Balkans and Central Europe. If these turn out to be EV-13, then the HG theory would be rendered asinine. What surprises me is the Bronze Age expansion dating from TMRCA analysis.The valid theories so far are 1) A Neolithic expansion from Western Asia (probably from Cardial Ware). This is supported by the fact that it's found in Spain, and western Croatia/Hungary, if the new samples are proven to be EV13. These places match well the expansion of the Cardial Ware movements. We also have to keep in mind that most archaeologists propose TWO independent farming movements into Europe. So here could lie the EV13-J/G dichotomy. 2) A HG marker from Mesolithic times (N. Africa?). This is supported by the marker's relative scarcity in farming sites, and would gather more fuel if the Lengyel and Sopot samples are a different type of E.3) An Indo-Europeanized farmer group from Cucuteni that expanded into the Balkans during the Bronze Age (along with J2). These could have been the linguistic pre-cursors to the Hellenes, Phrygians, Thraco-Illyrians, etc... and would maybe explain the lack of the Volga-Yamna component in these IE speaking areas. This is supported by the very young TMRCA analysis that pinpoints to a Bronze Age expansion, it's distribution in European only areas, and IE speaking Middle Eastern places like Kurdistan.

It's Neolithic, not Bronze Age in Europe.
 
For now we can make an educated guess that G2a were the original farmers. At the point when G2a developed farming package in Fertile Crescent and started to spread, we can make another educated guess, that the rest of haplogroups belonged to hunter gatherers. The uncertainty still exists where and when the rest of haplogroups were found and picked up by G2a farmers? From that point on every haplogroup (almost) started to grow and spread by and within farming communities.
Sorry for stating the obvious but some people are missing this mechanism behind Neolithic success and explosion of existing and new haplogroups.
 
Angela said:
LeBrok said:
She might not be a typical Vinca. High WHG can be a sign that her HG mother, who was 100 WHG, was assimilated into farmer society.
Just like KO1 in a Hungarian Neolithic village(Koros) was 100% hunter gatherer but all the others, and his descendents, were EEF.

ncomms6257-f2.jpg

Oh, thank you Angela and LeBrok! (y) This is great news, a 100% genetic hunter, who was a cultural farmer!

Do you remember our discussion about hunter-derived DNA in agricultural societies, from this thread?: :wary2:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

In that thread we argued whether one could become a farmer without being admixed by farmer DNA first.

We argued about the sequence of events, chronology - whether pure hunters were first assimilated by farmer communities, learned how to farm - and only then, in next generations, they mixed with farmers; or whether they were first "raped" and only their genetically mixed offspring could learn how to farm.

You claimed that all farmers found up to that point (when we discussed) - even if they had hunter Y-DNA or mtDNA - were autosomally not "pure" HG, but farmer admixed.

I replied, that the reason for this was because finding a pure hunter in a farming community would be like finding a needle in a haystack, because they were going to be pure only during first few generations (at best), while their offspring in next generations had to be farmer-admixed due to intermarriages.

Apparently they have just found a needle in a haystack, and it kind of confirms my point of view, you must admit. :cool-v:

Angela said:
The scenario might have been that when the farmers entered these areas, they mated with a few of the hunter gatherers in the area. With the passage of time, and their large populations, the EEF genes predominated.

Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.
 
Oh, thank you Angela and LeBrok!
good_job.gif
This is great news, a 100% genetic hunter, who was a cultural farmer!

Do you remember our discussion about hunter-derived DNA in agricultural societies, from this thread?:
wary.gif


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...thic-Early-Iron-Age-Y-DNA-landscape-of-Europe

In that thread we argued whether one could become a farmer without being admixed by farmer DNA first.

We argued about the sequence of events, chronology - whether pure hunters were first assimilated by farmer communities, learned how to farm - and only then, in next generations, they mixed with farmers; or whether they were first "raped" and only their genetically mixed offspring could learn how to farm.

You claimed that all farmers found up to that point (when we discussed) - even if they had hunter Y-DNA or mtDNA - were autosomally not "pure" HG, but farmer admixed.

I replied, that the reason for this was because finding a pure hunter in a farming community would be like finding a needle in a haystack, because they were going to be pure only during first few generations (at best), while their offspring in next generations had to be farmer-admixed due to intermarriages.

Apparently they have just found a needle in a haystack, and it kind of confirms my point of view, you must admit.
cool-v.gif




Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.


I'm afraid you've missed the point. We have found no, and I repeat no example where a community of hunter-gatherers, upon encountering the early farmers, instantly or even quickly adopted farming. The cultural diffusion method of the spread of agriculture was incorrect.

What we have found are situations like this where an individual hunter-gatherer, perhaps a slave, perhaps just one man who for whatever reason decided to join them, was adopted into the community. Eventually, because he was "outnumbered", if you will, by the genetic "farmers", his descendents were "farmers" genetically. That's why we have I2a and I1 farmers who are EEF. There seems to have been an absorption of a few women, too, but fewer, I think, at least in Central Europe, and if we are talking about the introgression of U4 and U5. There things stood for at least a 1000 years if my memory serves.

So, what did the rest of the hunter-gatherers do, the ones who weren't absorbed genetically? Well, given the fact that we find so few remaining settlements, and, to my knowledge, no new settlements in the core areas, I think they might just have left. A few hunter-gatherers might have lived in inaccessible and worthless mountain land (to the farmers), but the majority were probably in the northern fringe and the Atlantic fringe, and I think there was a reservoir of them far to the east and in the northeast.

Now, at a certain point Haak et al claim to see evidence of WHG "resurgence". It's my own belief, from when I did some research on that time period that it occurred once the farmers, now having adapted their "agricultural package" to the new environments and types of land, moved into outlying areas. I also think that it was a time of climate change and there was a movement south and west from some of the reservoir areas. When their way of life became more and more untenable some of them did enter into and were absorbed by farmer communities.

I think part of the problem here is that some posters are simplifying the ideas presented, and in the process distorting them. I don't think LeBrok ever said, and I know I certainly never said that it was impossible for hunter gatherers to learn farming. That would be silly. After all, the first farmers in the Near East were hunter-gatherers, were they not? They weren't planted here on earth fully formed by aliens. The point is that hunter-gatherers the world over adopt farming with great difficulty, slowly, and often when they have run out of alternatives.

I also think a good part of the WHG in some Europeans actually came from the east. The more pastoralist based society of the Indo-Europeans may have been a more attractive alternative for the hunter-gatherers. We have the example of the Australian aborigines who seem to have had much less difficulty becoming stockmen for ranchers than settling down to farm or learn a trade in the cities. I don't think that a mission type system like that used by the Spanish in their conquest of the Americas would have worked on the hunter-gatherers, although it might have been used to impose a sort of serfdom on the farmers.

"Missions varied enormously in their economic and religious success. Some could not support themselves; others developed fertile fields and vineyards and huge herds of cattle. Virtually all successful religious conversion was among sedentary Indians who were easier to control and more adaptable to agriculture and herding. The few attempts to convert such warlike nomads as the Apaches and Comanches failed dismally."
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/spanish-missions-us-history
 
Koros 1 (KO1) in the scatter plot that you've posted above, was a pure hunter, 100% WHG.

Yet, his occupation was clearly a farmer. So he learned how to farm thanks to a purely cultural transition.

He was a hunter culturally assimilated by a farmer community. A needle in a haystack that I mentioned.

Only later, his descendants acquired EEF genes, since they mated with their EEF neighbours.
He wasn't found in a proper grave to indicate belonging to the farming community, but rather his bones were scattered around the village. He might as well bin killed while stealing from farmers and was eaten by dogs.
 
Angela said:
The cultural diffusion method of the spread of agriculture was incorrect.

Royal Society doesn't agree with claims that the diffusion of agriculture was only demic. It currently argues for a mixed partially demic, partially cultural model - in some areas more demic, in others more cultural.

"Demic and cultural diffusion propagated the Neolithic transition across different regions of Europe":

http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/12/106/20150166

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Beaker-samples?p=461156&viewfull=1#post461156

We also find an increasing amount of HG ancestry - both autosomal and uniparental - in Middle and Late Neolithic samples, compared to Early Neolithic ones. How do you explain the increase of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic, compared to Early Neolithic? IMHO more and more hunters were adopting farming, and the initial impetus of demic diffusion of Near Eastern farmers slowed down. In Early Neolithic times farming was spreading mostly via migration, but in later periods of Neolithic an increasingly larger role was played by assimilation of individual local HG groups into larger agricultural communities, and maybe also by adoption of agriculture by some of local HG tribes.

More and more of uniparental markers previously thought to be brought in by Near Eastern farmers, now turn out to have been present in some groups of European hunters already in Paleolithic times. For example mtDNA lineage H - long thought to be brought into to Europe by Neolithic farmers, turns out to be Paleolithic (link):

http://terheninenmaa.blogspot.fi/2015/04/achilles-heel-of-admixture-analyses.html

However I have to strongly question your claim: "mtDna H is usually connected to ancient farmer populations, to the first farmers in Europe". That is simply not true.

The oldest mtDNA H in Europe (it has been just made public) is a from a Paleolithic woman from Cantabria (Iberian Peninsula). Additionally mtDNA H has been unmistakably detected in other two Cantabrian Magdalenian samples (100%), in one Epipaleolithic Basque sample (33%), in one Epipaleolithic Karelian sample (11%) and in one transitional Meso-Neolithic sample from Franchthi cave (Greece). There are other less confirmed (HVS-I only) data suggesting also loads of mtDNA H in Epipaleolithic Portugal (Chandler 2005), Late UP Arif (North Morocco), late UP Andalusia, UP Britain and Gravettian Russia (Sunghir). In other words, mtDNA H was very possibly scattered everywhere in Europe except apparently in the north-central region.

On the other hand Early Neolithic peoples were very low in their mtDNA H frequencies, much less than some UP populations apparently and certainly less than modern levels, with just around 25% of this lineage. It is true that mtDNA expands first (but not last) in Central Europe with the arrival of Danubian Neolithic but it's also true that this expansion cannot account at all with the formation of the modern mtDNA pool in that part of Europe, very particularly because its frequency of H is very low yet. See this.

So for me mtDNA H was irregularly scattered among European hunter-gatherers, with populations ranging from near 0% (Central and North Europe) to near 100% (some parts of Iberia at the very least). Some of it was picked by early European farmers on their way to Central and Western Europe but a large part of it was actually distributed with the so-called hunter-gatherer backflow in the Chalcolithic, probably in relation to Megalithism and maybe also Bell Beaker.
 
With regards to E-V13, as Maleth said, the ratio in Iberia is heavily skewed to E-M81, which undoubtedly mostly came directly from North Africa.

Plus, the E-V13 is in a Cardial setting at the entrance to Iberia. Cardial was a Neolithic east to west expansion out of the Balkans where we today find so much E-V13. It could then have moved into Iberia later on, explaining it's distribution there.

In addition to all that, E-123 has now been found in ancient Armenia, which means some ydna "E" lines most probably were involved in the Neolithic cultures of the Near East.

There is E-V13 in the Middle East today, even in interior areas which wouldn't have been much affected by trade.

Is the most logical and parsimonious explanation for the presence of E-V13 in the modern Balkans and adjoining areas really that it went from western North Africa, where it almost doesn't exist today, into Spain and then all the way east into the interior Near East? I don't think so.

This is a map of E-V13 distribution. Regardless of when it got to the Balkans, it came from the east. The flow into Italy might have been in the Neolithic, but a lot of it could also have been mediated by the Greeks from the Bronze Age on...

Haplogroup-E-V13.gif


I agree with Angela here, for E-V13: East Adriatic shores show few Y-E1b but great variance, even more thnan in Eastern Balkans. So an eastern mediterranean origin is more likely than a western one. I think it stays weak enough at Neolithic times before undergoing a demographic increase at bronze Age; it is stronger in Romania than stated, I think, about the 17%. I think it was present in Cucuteni-Tripolye long time ago.
I don't vote for Cucuteni Y-DNA because as remarked Holderlin, the period is not mentioned. By example, Y-J1 was surely present at low level, but Y-J2 could be arrived for the most at Bronze time, at high levels...
concerning others Y-haplos, I think Y-I2a1(b) and even Y-I2a2 could have begun to open their way into "high society" in N-E mountainous parts.
&: I still have an eye on Y-I2a2 : I believe I heard of it in hungary in Vatya culture and in earlier Vucedol
(if I don't mistake); some period of Vucedol was linked by some scholars to BBs origins.
 
Angela said:
I also think a good part of the WHG in some Europeans actually came from the east. The more pastoralist based society of the Indo-Europeans may have been a more attractive alternative for the hunter-gatherers.

This is true that a lot of HG (in this case rather EHG than WHG - EHG was quite different from WHG, because it was ANE-rich) was brought from the east by steppe people such as Yamnaya. But already before those migrations from the east, an increase of HG (WHG and SHG) could be observed in Middle and Late Neolithic. LeBrok argued that it was due to HG genes - especially their Y-DNA - being selected for. IMO that could be simply due to an increasing number of hunter-gatherers being assimilated into agricultural communities, and then exploding demographically, increasing in numbers (as farmers tend to do). If ~50 hunters learn how to farm, they will grow to ~1000 descendants in few generations.

As for HG ancestry - it seems to me that calling all of it WHG is already obsolete by now. ;)

We have learned by now, that there were at least three quite distinct types of HGs in Europe:

WHG - western (Iberian-French) hunters
SHG - central (Scandinavian-Hungarian) hunters
EHG - eastern (Karelian-Russian) hunters

There were similarities between them, but also differences. EHG, for instance, was ANE-rich.

Both SHG and EHG were also lighter-pigmented than WHG. WHG were darker, if I remember correctly.

WHG probably had more of Aurignacian ancestry (see Y-DNA of Kostenki 14, and then La-Brana).

Angela said:
Now, at a certain point Haak et al claim to see evidence of WHG "resurgence". It's my own belief, from when I did some research on that time period that it occurred once the farmers, now having adapted their "agricultural package" to the new environments and types of land, moved into outlying areas. I also think that it was a time of climate change and there was a movement south and west from some of the reservoir areas. When their way of life became more and more untenable some of them did enter into and were absorbed by farmer communities.

I think part of the problem here is that some posters are simplifying the ideas presented, and in the process distorting them. I don't think LeBrok ever said, and I know I certainly never said that it was impossible for hunter gatherers to learn farming. That would be silly. After all, the first farmers in the Near East were hunter-gatherers, were they not? They weren't planted here on earth fully formed by aliens. The point is that hunter-gatherers the world over adopt farming with great difficulty, slowly, and often when they have run out of alternatives.

So we agree that the resurgence of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic was due to more and more hunters gradually learning how to farm. I have never claimed that it was a swift process without difficulties.
 
I think differences between WHG, SHG and EHG could be the result of their origins from three distinct Ice Age refugia. The old concept of Ice Ace Refugia was wrong when it comes to association of certain haplogroups with certain refugia (see the map below) - especially when it comes to spurious association of R1b with Iberian refugium.

But it doesn't mean that the entire concept was erroneous:

IceAgeRefugiaR1bR1aIHaplogroups.jpg


Association of three HG autosomal components - WHG, SHG and EHG - with those three refugia as shown in the map, seems probable. However, WHG were not R1b, but rather C1 (C-M130) and some subclades of I2.

The Balkan refugium, on the other hand, could be other subclades of I2, as well as I1.

==================

I have started a new thread about this:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...quot-in-the-context-of-WHG-SHG-EHG-ancestries
 
This is true that a lot of HG (in this case rather EHG than WHG - EHG was quite different from WHG, because it was ANE-rich) was brought from the east by steppe people such as Yamnaya. But already before those migrations from the east, an increase of HG (WHG and SHG) could be observed in Middle and Late Neolithic. LeBrok argued that it was due to HG genes - especially their Y-DNA - being selected for. IMO that could be simply due to an increasing number of hunter-gatherers being assimilated into agricultural communities, and then exploding demographically, increasing in numbers (as farmers tend to do). If ~50 hunters learn how to farm, they will grow to ~1000 descendants in few generations.

As for HG ancestry - it seems to me that calling all of it WHG is already obsolete by now. ;)

We have learned by now, that there were at least three quite distinct types of HGs in Europe:

WHG - western (Iberian-French) hunters
SHG - central (Scandinavian-Hungarian) hunters
EHG - eastern (Karelian-Russian) hunters

There were similarities between them, but also differences. EHG, for instance, was ANE-rich.

Both SHG and EHG were also lighter-pigmented than WHG. WHG were darker, if I remember correctly.

WHG probably had more of Aurignacian ancestry (see Y-DNA of Kostenki 14, and then La-Brana).



So we agree that the resurgence of HG ancestry in Middle and Late Neolithic was due to more and more hunters gradually learning how to farm. I have never claimed that it was a swift process without difficulties.

I'm sorry, I still think you're not seeing the subtlety of the distinctions. We do not yet have any evidence, even in the Middle and Late Neolithic, of bands of hunter gatherers looking at the neighboring farmers and deciding, wow, that looks like a great idea, and adopting farming as a community. It is always in the context of their being absorbed into a farming community, and with some degree of genetic admixture, at least so far.

I never said that h-g groups were incapable of farming. If nothing else, some of them could have been enslaved and forced to farm, which may have been the case with KOI, although if we look at the example of the American West, Australia, and the San, that very rarely works. They usually pine away or sicken or run away.

When the climate changed and they had absolutely no other option other than starvation, some of them might also have gone to farming communities and been absorbed. That happened in the American West as well.

Now, as I said, that may have changed under the Indo-Europeans, because the pastoralist life style may have been a better fit for them.

Ed. The proof is that after thousands of years, the MN and LN farmers were still 75% EEF, and it may indeed be that EEF = ENF.
 
Last edited:
"Missions varied enormously in their economic and religious success. Some could not support themselves; others developed fertile fields and vineyards and huge herds of cattle. Virtually all successful religious conversion was among sedentary Indians who were easier to control and more adaptable to agriculture and herding. The few attempts to convert such warlike nomads as the Apaches and Comanches failed dismally."
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/spanish-missions-us-history

This may be the critical distinction. If nomadic or semi-nomadic HGs had various itchy-feet type traits that suited that lifestyle then sedentary HGs may have lost some or all of them as part of the process of becoming sedentary. So nomadic types recruited/enslaved to be farmers might never settle but could if they were recruited as herders whereas HGs that were already sedentary might be able to fit in as farmers.

If correct then that leads to the interesting possibility that you might see different dynamics in regions where there were pre-existing sedentary HGs.
 
That's a useful line of speculation, ( i.e. that there were different results in different places depending on the lifestyle of the h-g ), but from what I remember, most of the h-g groups in Europe at the time of the arrival of the farmers were already mostly sedentary hunter-fisher gatherers, although with seasonal movements to different camps. The paleolithic mammoth hunters were long gone. Someone could check it out.

Still, the fact remains that if you remove all the mumbo-jumbo and slicing and dicing, this is the logic:

IF-

Barcin = ENF who went to Europe (the farmers who went to Europe from the Near East were like Barcin, as seems to be the case)

Barcin = EEF (perhaps only a few percent difference)

MN/LN = 75% EEF

Then, after thousands of years of cohabitation the farmers only picked up 25% of their ancestry from the h-g groups who were in Europe when they arrived. Yes?

So, either the h-g groups were extraordinarily small, and the farmers were breeding like rabbits, or most of the h-g groups still couldn't adapt and fled to places like far northeastern Europe and perhaps far northwestern Europe or to mountain refuges or whatever, only to slowly trickle in and be absorbed with climate change, and later a slightly larger group were absorbed by Indo-Europeans as stockmen or whatever.

I think we also have to consider that the Mission system was the product of a much later and more sophisticated civilization and belief system. It was a concerted effort by a very small group of elite men to "Christianize" and save the souls of the natives, as well as to "pacify" the regions. (The whole problem was that it was difficult, if not impossible, to recruit enough European families to these areas as settlers.)

The Neolithic societies may not have been able to manage such a scheme, nor may they have wanted or needed to do it. They came as a folk migration with their own women, and, as I said, they seem to have bred like rabbits. I've also always found it interesting how averse a good number of these societies were to the eating of fish. (very short sighted of them from a nutritional stand, or from the point of view of soil fertility for that matter) They do it in some areas, but not in most. Perhaps they associated it with hunter-fisher-gatherers. It seems like deliberate avoidance to me, as if these people and their food were "treif" or non-kosher.
 
Perhaps one also cant farm because of lack of grain or know how which in that age arrived only with genes. Dont think they had student exchange :)

I would not be able to either hunt or farm if someone told me to tomorrow. OK, I could because of google, but the point stays.

Just like farmers could not hunt or survive in Northern lands before quite late because lacked the local know how.
 
Perhaps one also cant farm because of lack of grain or know how which in that age arrived only with genes. Dont think they had student exchange :)

I would not be able to either hunt or farm if someone told me to tomorrow. OK, I could because of google, but the point stays.

Just like farmers could not hunt or survive in Northern lands before quite late because lacked the local know how.

Very true; the farmers had to perhaps learn to supplement their diet with fish, and perhaps even more importantly, they couldn't colonize there until they had modified their crops for the new terrain and climate conditions.

If the internet permanently went down, most people in modern industrialized societies would starve because most people in such societies don't have a clue how to farm or hunt. We have some "survivalist" groups here, often based in rural areas. I'd be a great recruit for everything except the hunting...I've always left that to the men, although I can cook it once they "bag" it. Blame it on all those summers on my great-uncle's farm, and my father's dedication to his vegetable garden. When he retired it became a virtual truck farm and fruit orchard, and toward the end he was planning to put in a chicken run and rabbit hutch, and was trying to convince my mother that a few pigs and a cow or two might be a good idea. She wasn't having any of it. It was quite extraordinary to see this businessman undergo this metamorphosis into subsistence farmer. :)
 
Necessity is the mother of all inventions and I have no doubt that farmers became farmers as there was not enough game around in drier areas so one was pushed to new ideas how to be able to provide food for the tribe. If one is getting by killing Mammoths, dear and wild pig in areas that support a good breeding ground besides for all one would hardly be bothered to think to domesticate anything (except for dogs). The catch even was preserved longer due to colder climates, unlike warmer more southern zones where grain growing would have an advantage and preserves better then meat (unless cured)
 
It seems that the Romani people are descended from hunter-gatherers, but those of India:

"The Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome Haplogroup H1a1a-M82 Reveals the Likely Indian Origin of the European Romani Populations":

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048477

(...) In order to ascertain the closest population group among northwestern Indians, we redrew the network of Roma haplotypes exclusively within the northwestern Indian variation (Fig. 3). It is highly revealing that the closest or matching haplotypes with the Roma haplotypes were found in scheduled caste and scheduled tribe populations, while the middle and upper caste haplotypes were more distant to the Roma haplotypes (Fig. 3). Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes are the endogamous groups in India that are given a special status by the Government of India to uplift their social status (for more details, refer [47]). Historically, the assimilation of so-called tribals into the caste system generally did little to ameliorate the socio-economic barriers or enhance the marriageability of former outcastes to members of the middle or high castes. However their language and means of subsistence were often affected, e.g. assimilation to an Indo-Aryan language and the shift from foraging, hunting and fishing to a more sedentary existence. Not surprisingly, the genetic differences between scheduled tribes and scheduled castes are not found to be substantial [47]. On the basis of our findings, it is therefore most parsimonious to conclude that the genealogically closest patrilineal ancestors of the Roma were among the ancestors of the present scheduled tribes and scheduled caste populations of northwestern India. The genetic data analysed here for the first time provide strong population genetic support for the linguistic based identification of the ancestral Roma with the presumed aboriginal Doma of northwestern India and the Gangetic plain.

(...)

The name by which Roma designate themselves is Rroma (singular Rrom), whereby the double rr in Romani orthography represents a uvular ‘r’ [R] as opposed to an apical ‘r’ [r]. The autonym Rroma is held to be cognate with Doma, a collective term for the ancient aboriginal populations of the Indian subcontinent. Many Doma remained outcastes or tribals, whereas some were assimilated into the lower strata of the caste system by the Indo-European speaking Indians. (...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduled_Castes_and_Scheduled_Tribes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adivasi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit

[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scheduled_Tribes_in_India


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_Backward_Class
[/URL]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paliyan
 

This thread has been viewed 76740 times.

Back
Top