Cultural rather than demographic Neolithization in Eastern Europe

The archeological record alone makes it obvious that farming techniques diffused rather rapidly across the Dniepr-Don and Comb Ceramic horizons. Even some of the northernmost Pit-Comb settlements reveal that farming accounted for up to 50% of the inhabitants' sustenance with no traces of accompanying migrations.

What puzzles me however is how the populations along the Baltic shores developed from Corded Ware moving into a sort of terra nullius. There must have been a significant shift towards a population with increased Basal Eurasian affinity later on. Did this happen with the circum-Baltic spread of the Baltic languages? Do we have samples in this region from, say, the very late Bronze age to Iron age and/or evidence pointing to discontinuities in settlement to test this?
 
Last edited:
The archeological record alone makes it obvious that farming techniques diffused rather rapidly across the Dniepr-Don and Comb Ceramic horizons. Even some of the northernmost Pit-Comb settlements reveal that farming accounted for up to 50% of the inhabitants' sustenance with no traces of accompanying migrations.

What puzzles me however is how the populations along the Baltic shores developed from Corded Ware moving into a sort of terra nulla. There must have been a significant shift towards a population with increased Basal Eurasian affinity later on. Did this happen with the circum-Baltic spread of the Baltic languages? Do we have samples in this region from, say, the very late Bronze age to Iron age and/or evidence pointing to discontinuities in settlement to test this?

Do you have some citations you could provide for the highlighted statements? When did agriculture spread to these areas and in what context?
 
Tomenable, the East Baltic Neolithic was still HG-genetically because farmers never settled there. They didn't enter the Neolithic as Western Europe did, by the settlement of foreign farmers. So the East Baltic doesn't prove we made generalizations. We've all suspected hunter gatherers remained there unaffected by farmers till 2000-3000 BC for years now.
 
Then R1a ancestors of European R1a-Z282 mixed with the native N1c1 & Q population of the Balitcs and other peripheral areas in Eastern Europe

You're ignoring aDNA data. EHG was mostly R1a/b.
 
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.
 
LeBrok,

You were the one claiming that all farmers were genetically the same and only one group ever switched to farming. \
Never. Please site me saying otherwise.


As ancient DNA from the Middle East shows - that claim was wrong. There were several genetically very distinct groups of hunter-gatherers, who became farmers without even mixing with each other (e.g. Levantines, Iranians and Anatolians).
Yes and Chinese and some groups in America like Mayans. It was never a secret.

The point which you didn't grasp is that no HG group can change to farming from only cultural/learning aspect. To change from HG to farmers, on its own, takes couple of thousands of years, because genetic adaptation to farming needs to happen. If you are HG and you want your kids to farm, marry a farmer, so your kids have farming genes.


This paper about Baltic Neolithic shows that there was yet another group - because no Anatolian admixture was found
Was does this mean?
we also detected signals consistent with influxes from non-local populations
Neolithic Iranian Farmer?


So the whole Farmer Supremacy agenda claiming that without having "farmer genes" you cannot farm, is falling apart.
This is your weird way to see the world. The supremacy, the superior, the better, etc. I just see patterns. That's all.
 
Natufians (Hunters from Levant) belong to E1b. After farmer migration into the Levant, we find H2 and T1* (xT1a1, T1a2, T1a3a) together with non-natufian autosomal admixture. Where you found HG Levantines became "Farmers" without non-natufian admixture?
You are confusing uniparental DNA with autosomal DNA and its admixtures. Anatolian Farmers had at least 50% of Natufian admixture.
 
The neolithic in the Baltic was introduced by Corded Ware Culture, which was mostly Yamnaya and thus substantially different from Anatolians.
Yes. They also had 10-15% of EEF, and also should have some Iranian Neolithic too. I would guess about 30% farmer genes. Steppe_MLBA was 45% Iranian/Anatolian Farmer.
 
@Lebrok,

A btw; Corded Ware was more Near Eastern than Yamnaya and definitely more farmer descended because many of Yamnaya's Near Eastern ancestors could have been hunter gatherers.
 
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

SibHG?
.....
 
I have my own sources ;)
Which matched with your sources :)

But in general I would suggest to read any Raisa Denisova work on Baltic anthropology. It is all there.
 
Can anyone with insider information shade light on when the paper or pre-print will be available on aDNA of the Baltic region? Few months? Six months?
 
BTW, I know the results for the upcoming Baltic aDNA paper. No one is 100% correct yet. Only clue I'll give is some of the results defy geography.

Defy in genome-wide comparison or in terms of Y-DNA structure? Elaborate please.:)
 
You're ignoring aDNA data. EHG was mostly R1a/b.
Don't think so. EHG auDNA is pretty younger and recent, while R1a/b is at least tens of thousands of years old. Y-DNA haplogroups predate all modern auDNA...

Or do you think than EHG auDNA component is 30,000 years old?

R1* & R2 are maybe related to more ancient ANE or something like ANE, but ANE something is partly ancestral to EHG..

So R1*, R1b, R2 is also very much related and connected to the Iranian Plateau.


EHG auDNA is as much related to Y-DNA hg. N1, Q etc. as to hg. R1a..


EHG auDNA component = Mongoloid + Caucasoid lineages..


It is also possible that over time auDNA of Y-DNA hg. R1a could be deluted in the Steppes.
 
EHG auDNA is as much related to Y-DNA hg. N1
There is no N1 in EHG samples. The oldest N1 in Europe is from 2500 BC from a Late Neolithic farmer-fisher who lived near Smolensk.
 
There is no N1 in EHG samples. The oldest N1 in Europe is from 2500 BC from a Late Neolithic farmer-fisher who lived near Smolensk.
What do you mean by 'Europe'? Everything west of Wolga river? If so, then more than 75% of Russia is not Europe but Asia. Are Russians European? At least 25% of Russians do belong to hg. N1c1. Are Finns Europeans, because more than 60% of the Finns are Y-DNA hg. N1c1. In the Baltics it is more than 40 %. Hg. N1* and Q are native to the Eurasian Steppes, Eastern Europe and Eastern Asia, while very exotic in Western Europe and West Asia brought by the Turanic people.

From the latest DNA paper of the Steppes, they found Y-DNA lineages that are exotic in West Asia and SouthWestern Europe and do almost not exist there..


Don't you see the link? everywhere where is lots of hg. N1c1 there is lots of EHG auDNA. In Finland there is ONLY 5% of R1a and 4% R1b, while in Spain there is 70% R1b!!! Finland has more EHG than Spain, how is it possible?

The fact that EHG is low in Spain, while there is more than 70% of R1b in Spain, means that R1b* has NOTHING to do with EHG...


EHG is NOT related to R1b and R1a, because if EHG was related to R1b there would be much more EHG in Spain than in Finland.


There where EHG is high, hg. N1 and Q percentages are also very high.


auDNA is just more than 1 Y-DNA or mt-DNA. auDNA is a combination of many Y-DNA & mt-DNA haplogroups.


EHG is related to N1 & Q as much as to R1a. That's why EHG auDNA component is partly a 'Mongoloid' partly 'Caucasoid' component that came into existense when 'Mongoloid' and 'Caucasoid' Y-DNA & mtDNA haplogroups mixed with each other.


EHG auDNA is hybrid and much, much more mixed than WHG, CHG and IranianPlateau auDNA.



IMO the most pure and "Caucasoid" auDNA is CHG !!!!
 

This thread has been viewed 25405 times.

Back
Top