Distribution map of Y-DNA and mtDNA haplogroup in and around Europe circa 8000 BCE

[LeBrok]

That is very interesting. It looks like there was a convergence of different tribes and/or technologies/domesticates around 7000-6500 BCE that kickstarted the Neolithic expansion to Europe. Suddenly, instead of having cereal farmers, ovicaprid herders and cattle herders separately, these Neolithic people had all three + pottery.

I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...311#post463311

[Alpenjager]

Its highly doubtful that T1a where goat herders along with J1 because because there is zero evidence of any T1a in the arabian peninsula or eastern Africa of any T1a older than 2000years.
T-L446 appears to show greater variation in Europe than it does in the middle east. The T-Y7381 branch found in Saudi Arabia (and heavily tested) is relatively young (1400 ybp) so could be the result of a recent migration from further north.
The paper the Levant versus the Horn of Africa also states this.If T1a and J1 where together as goat herders , they would also be together in the Arabian peninsula , which they are not. 44% J1 and 3.5% T1a ..........J1 are the nomadic group. I see T1a as per Haak , that is 95% EEF ( farmers)

The 2 x T1a in early Neolithic Central germany are surrounded by 8 x G2a and 1 x H2 ..............the only conclusion is that T1a was around with G2a in the caucasus .............IMO the ancient T in northern Europe are from the Azeri lands today.
Were there is G2a in the Alps of Tyrol, you find 5% of T1a, where you find G2a in the mountains of central france you find 4% of T1a. Where you find G2a in the mountains of central Italy you find nearly 9% of T1a.

The other factor is that all T men have the marker TL-P326, this union and eventual split still sees T and L in places together in the present and in the ancient times.....Dagestan, Lezkins, Caucasus, levant, Anatolia, Tyrol Alps, Estonia, Bulgaria etc etc...............so where ever T you should also find L nearly
The TL formation first rose in the sind valley of South Asia and the split between T and L somewhere near by.

After being together with L and G2a group , the next marker it is with is J2 ( phoenician main marker )............be it 14000 years ago ( T1-Pages21 ) in the northern Levant or 9000 years ago in northern egypt it also trvelled with the phoenician J2.
Btw there is a lot of L marker in northern Levant.

I agree, Is very unlikely that T1a traveled together to J1. T1a subclade distributions in Europe doesn't match to J1 distribution.

[Angela]

I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads...311#post463311

The most recent papers claim the opposite.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Ani...Central_Europe

"Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."

This makes sense as it seems that the earliest farmers to leave the Near East, those who went to Cyprus, already had domesticated animals.

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gc...Europe&f=false

The Neolithic in Cyprus:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/swiny.pdf

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.

[LeBrok]

The most recent papers claim the opposite.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Ani...Central_Europe

The paper I was citing is from 2013.

"Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."

Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.

This makes sense as it seems that the earliest farmers to leave the Near East, those who went to Cyprus, already had domesticated animals.

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=gc...Europe&f=false

The Neolithic in Cyprus:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/cyprus/neolithic.html
http://www.asor.org/pubs/books-monographs/swiny.pdf

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.

Some site dating could be off? I'll be glad to get to the bottom of this conundrum. Intriguing anyway. :)

[bicicleur]

"Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17,30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig"

I have to admit I made a little assumption that these first Neolithic Farmers in Hungary were G2a. I'm not sure if DNA from Lepenski Vir site skeletons were sequenced. However most of Early Neolithic farmers from Europe were G2a carriers, so it is most likely these folks were G2a too.

Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka

[LeBrok]

Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka

It was a farmer society heavily hybridized with locals.

[Angela]

LeBrok: The paper I was citing is from 2013.

Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.

This is the paper to which you're referring, right?

""Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17, 30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig"

I've just re-read the paper, which I should have done before I responded to you, so my apologies. Nowhere in the paper can I see that the authors address the issue of the presence of domesticated animals in the early Neolithic in Greece or generally in the Balkans. They are addressing only one specific area, that around the Danube Gorges, where there was a relatively large group of sedentary fisher gatherers. The authors, through strontium isotope analysis, show that starting from around 6200 BC there were several waves of newcomers. Some new settlements were started on land more amenable to the agricultural package, and these vastly increased over time. However, a few of the prior fisher-gatherer settlements continued to be occupied for some time. It is those settlements whose subsistence strategies they discuss. Even those settlements show some genetic admixture based on the variety of skeleton types, and this increased over time. Eventually, the fisher/hunters, if they did not flee, were totally absorbed by the farmers. This may be the place where the Anatolian farmers picked up their 10% KO1 like European Mesolithic WHG like ancestry.

The paragraph which you cited is referring to the very earliest time of contact, when these people had apparently started to trade for new kinds of goods, and perhaps some wives, but as they were in a phase of "cultural hybridity", according to the authors, they had not yet adopted domesticated animals. They hadn't even adopted farming yet, as the authors make a point of saying that their subsistence strategies hadn't changed.

""The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17,30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig""

The paper is very confusingly written, but I think if you read it again you'll see what I mean. These people held onto to their prior subsistence patterns for quite a while, before eventually, within a few hundred years, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers around them.

So, I guess my point is that there is no contradiction between this paper and all of the other archaeological work that has been done in the Balkans on this topic.

Ed. Sorry, this was prepared last night and I forgot to post it.

[MOESAN]

It is not directly related to your map but this may be a good place to write something I think many would disagree with. It is an opinion I've had for some time about the spread of agriculture - considering a lot of information we have collected about haplogroups, both from modern populations and aDNA, it looks to me as if agriculture was not spread by human migrations, but it was more like a spread of a cultural phenomenon.
This is partly why my view is a bit different when G2a is in question.

aDNA could give a part of the answer I think, but we have the more precise metrics surveys that show a sharp and quick change in central Balkans at the deabreak of european agriculture, neatly separating last HGs and first Farmers; no way-of-life nor climatic explanation can explain it, only demic new arrivals. the same for other regions of Europe at the time of this transition.

[LeBrok]

This is the paper to which you're referring, right?

""Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/9/3298.long

Here is a paragraph describing migration of first Neolithic farmers who came to Hungary, Danubian Gorge area:

"The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17, 30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig"

I've just re-read the paper, which I should have done before I responded to you, so my apologies. Nowhere in the paper can I see that the authors address the issue of the presence of domesticated animals in the early Neolithic in Greece or generally in the Balkans. They are addressing only one specific area, that around the Danube Gorges, where there was a relatively large group of sedentary fisher gatherers. The authors, through strontium isotope analysis, show that starting from around 6200 BC there were several waves of newcomers. Some new settlements were started on land more amenable to the agricultural package, and these vastly increased over time. However, a few of the prior fisher-gatherer settlements continued to be occupied for some time. It is those settlements whose subsistence strategies they discuss. Even those settlements show some genetic admixture based on the variety of skeleton types, and this increased over time. Eventually, the fisher/hunters, if they did not flee, were totally absorbed by the farmers. This may be the place where the Anatolian farmers picked up their 10% KO1 like European Mesolithic WHG like ancestry.

The paragraph which you cited is referring to the very earliest time of contact, when these people had apparently started to trade for new kinds of goods, and perhaps some wives, but as they were in a phase of "cultural hybridity", according to the authors, they had not yet adopted domesticated animals. They hadn't even adopted farming yet, as the authors make a point of saying that their subsistence strategies hadn't changed.

""The ensuing period has been referred to as the Final Mesolithic (16) or Mesolithic–Neolithic transformation phase (17,30) and is currently dated to ∼6200–6000/5950 cal B.C., making this phase in the Danube Gorges entirely contemporary with early Neolithic sites in the Morava, middle Danube, and Tisza valleys (14). Remarkable art in the form of sculpted boulders and innovative architectural features such as red limestone trapezoidal-shaped building floors found at the key site of Lepenski Vir (SI Appendix, section I and Fig. S2) are attributed to this phase (ref. 31 and SI Appendix). This is the phase of cultural hybridity in the Danube Gorges. Early Neolithic pottery (32, 33), polished stone axes (34), nonlocal good quality yellow white-spotted “Balkan” flint from areas 200 km away from the Danube Gorges in northern Bulgaria (35) as well as novel, typical Neolithic morphologies in osseous tools were found associated with trapezoidal buildings at the sites of Lepenski Vir and Padina. At the same time, these buildings harnessed many indigenous architectural and material culture elements, whereas the lack of domesticates (except for dogs) during this phase suggests an unaltered subsistence pattern (30). Mortuary practices were still characterized by extended supine burials during this period (SI Appendix, Fig""

The paper is very confusingly written, but I think if you read it again you'll see what I mean. These people held onto to their prior subsistence patterns for quite a while, before eventually, within a few hundred years, becoming overwhelmed by the sheer numbers around them.

So, I guess my point is that there is no contradiction between this paper and all of the other archaeological work that has been done in the Balkans on this topic.

Ed. Sorry, this was prepared last night and I forgot to post it.

I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later

PS. In same article about Sesklo, an archaeologist claimed that in "Pre-potery" phase they used more primitive pottery kind. I lost a link, but I think it was a book from 80s available online.

PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Ani...Central_Europe

[bicicleur]

I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later

PS. In same article about Sesklo, an archaeologist claimed that in "Pre-potery" phase they used more primitive pottery kind. I lost a link, but I think it was a book from 80s available online.

PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/Ani...Central_Europe

what's more, strontium isotope analysis suggests the males were local HG while many of the females were farmers daughters coming from elsewhere
these HG probably had a better life than the farmers ; the reason was the rich fishing grounds in the Danube Gorge

[bicicleur]

When it comes to haplogroups of Xiaohe mummies:

Y-DNA = R1a (11 samples = ca. 92%) and K (one sample = ca. 8%)
mtDNA = H, K, U5, U7, U2e, T, R*, C4, C5, B, D, G2a, M5 and maybe M*

Authors claim that C4 and C5 are "East Asian", but in fact they are native Siberian, and also present in Europe:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2013/0...na-c-from.html

if they are not Z-93 then they probably were not Andronovo

there are signs of contacts between China and Indo-Europeans before Andronovo (horses, cattle herders, bronze ...)



the contacts came 2 ways : north via Manchuria and through the Gansu corridor
contact was not allways direct, it was via middle men
Q1a1-M120 arrived in NW China > 3 ka, they became part of the aristocracy of the early Han Chinese
N arrived from Manchuria, often as cattle herder , it is also a component of early Han Chinese (3 ka)
Lower Xiajidian culture (3-2.4 ka) involves arrival of cattle herders from Mongolia, probably C2 people who had been in contact with Tochars before Andronovo
Those C2 did not become part of the Han Chinese though.
The peasants in central China prior to the Han were O and many of them had allready moved south for more farming lands into Indochina prior to the formation of the Han Chinese.

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

[Maleth]

That's what I have said for several years. I mentioned E-M78 among Mesolithic Southeast Europeans and Southwest Europeans, and that includes E-V13. It isn't only E-V13 though. Europeans also have many indigenous subclades of E-V12 and E-V22 - hence the umbrella term M78.

Lets not forget however that 85% of all E-M78 in Europe are E-V13 and the origins and frequencies outside of Europe visa vi of E-V12 and E-V22 tell different mutation locations, dates and migration stories

[bicicleur]

Lets not forget however that 85% of all E-M78 in Europe are E-V13 and the origins and frequencies outside of Europe visa vi of E-V12 and E-V22 tell different mutation locations, dates and migration stories

E-L618 (ancestral to E-V13) and E-V22 are brother clades

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/

while E-V13 is Eurasian, E-V22 is mixed with African and Eurasian subclades

IMO they were in the Nile Delta during the 8.2 ka climate event
some E-V22 went alongside E-V88 into Africa as cattle herders
the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

[Shetop]

the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

If that had been the case, then we would have E-L618 in Northeast Africa today. But it does not exist there, which makes your scenario unfounded.

[bicicleur]

If that had been the case, then we would have E-L618 in Northeast Africa today. But it does not exist there, which makes your scenario unfounded.

and where is E-L618 today? do you have data?

according to YFull E-L618 and E-V13 split 7600 year ago

[Shetop]

and where is E-L618 today? do you have data?

according to YFull E-L618 and E-V13 split 7600 year ago

So far, it had only been found in the Northern half of Europe: https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

[Maleth]

E-L618 (ancestral to E-V13) and E-V22 are brother clades

http://www.yfull.com/tree/E-Z1919/

while E-V13 is Eurasian, E-V22 is mixed with African and Eurasian subclades

IMO they were in the Nile Delta during the 8.2 ka climate event
some E-V22 went alongside E-V88 into Africa as cattle herders
the other tribes came into cantact with the Carded Ware people along the Mediterranean shores

Bicicleur, I suggest you read the individual migration routes of the three subclades under E-78. Example it states that it is believed that E-V13 mutated in West Asia contrary to say E-V12 that it is believed to have mutated in North Africa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-V68

[Shetop]

Example it states that it is believed that E-V13 mutated in West Asia

It was believed. Not any more...

[Maleth]

It was believed. Not any more...

And what we believe now?

[Shetop]

And what we believe now?

Well, I'm sure that what I believe is not something everyone would agree with.
So, my opinion is that E-V13 SNP originated in Europe. There are multiple reasons for that, but presence of E-L618(xV13) in Europe is one of the main ones.

[Maleth]

Well, I'm sure that what I believe is not something everyone would agree with.
So, my opinion is that E-V13 SNP originated in Europe. There are multiple reasons for that, but presence of E-L618(xV13) in Europe is one of the main ones.

Ok so we are on the same lines, by the way it has also been suggested in one of the papers :)

[bicicleur]

that is what I meant
somewhere around 8 ka E-L618 and a few subclades of E-V22 were picked up near the Nile delta along the shores of the Mediteranean into Eurasia
E-L618 and E-V13 split a little bit later, 7.6 ka
acording to YFull E-V13 didn't split before 4.3 ka , maybe E-L618* split even later

[Shetop]

that is what I meant
somewhere around 8 ka E-L618 and a few subclades of E-V22 were picked up near the Nile delta along the shores of the Mediteranean into Eurasia
E-L618 and E-V13 split a little bit later, 7.6 ka
acording to YFull E-V13 didn't split before 4.3 ka , maybe E-L618* split even later

One thing is certain - L618 mutation happened before V13. That is why L618 geographic distribution is very important for understanding V13.