More Neolithic Y-DNA and mtDNA from Hungary, Germany and Spain (Lipson et al. 2017)

Maciamo

Veteran member
Admin
Messages
9,948
Reaction score
3,228
Points
113
Location
Lothier
Ethnic group
Italo-celto-germanic
It's been raining ancient DNA samples lately! 127 new ancient DNA samples, including 82 Y-DNA, from various Neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures in Europe.

Parallel ancient genomic transects reveal complexpopulation history of early European farmers


Abstract

Ancient DNA studies have established that European Neolithic populations were descended from Anatolian migrants who received a limited amount of admixture from resident hunter-gatherers. Many open questions remain, however,about the spatial and temporal dynamics of population interactions and admixture during the Neolithic period. Using the highest-resolution genome wide ancient DNA data set assembled to date—a total of 177 samples, 127 newly reported here, from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic of Hungary (6000–2900 BCE, n = 98), Germany (5500–3000 BCE, n = 42), and Spain (5500–2200 BCE, n = 37)—we investigate the population dynamics of Neolithization across Europe. We find that genetic diversity was shaped predominantly by local processes, with varied sources and proportions of hunter-gatherer ancestry among the three regions and through time. Admixture between groups with different ancestry profiles was pervasive and resulted in observable population transformation across almost all cultural transitions. Our results shed new light on the ways that gene flow reshaped European populations throughout the Neolithic period and demonstrate the potential of time-series-based sampling and modeling approaches to elucidate multiple dimensions of historical population interactions.


You will find a summary of the samples on pages 27-28 of the main article, and another list including only the new Y-DNA samples on pages 45-47 of the supplementary information. I only had a quick look, but so far most of the samples are what one would have expected to find. The Y-DNA haplogroups are the same as those reported before in Neolithic Europe: G2a, H2, I2a1, I2a2, I2c + a few I*, CT, C1a2 and even R1* and R1b1*. There are just a few interesting samples.

- One E1b1b1a1b1 (L618, just upstream of V13) in Lengyel, meaning that V13 could really have developed in Central Europe during the Early Bronze Age from remnants of Neolithic E-L618. This E1b1b sample and the J2a in Lengyel are probably the same as the E1b1b and J2 reported in Anna Szécsényi-Nagy's 2015 thesis, so not new to us, but at least we have a little bit more details about the subclade (the E-M78 is E-L618 and the J2 is in fact a J2a).

- One H1b1 in Lengyel. That one is odder. Haplogroup H1 is mostly South Asian and associated with Gypsies in Europe. However that is mostly H1a. H1b1 is such a rare haplogroup that I couldn't even find where it is found today.


P.S.: I am not sure that there are actually 127 new samples in this study. It looks like many of them came from other studies.
 
Interesting, Mesolithic/Neolithic Blätterhöhle from Western Germany has Y-DNA R1 at 66%. The site yielded something like 400 skeletons or so I've heard.
 
Interesting, Mesolithic/Neolithic Blätterhöhle from Western Germany has Y-DNA R1 at 66%. The site yielded something like 400 skeletons or so I've heard.

I think it's R1b1, isn't it? So, it's WHG?

When you have admixed people like this it's hard to know to whom to attribute the autosomal ancestry.
 
I think it's R1b1, isn't it? So, it's WHG?

When you have admixed people like this it's hard to know to whom to attribute the autosomal ancestry.

Yes, it's R1 and R1b1 (there's also another R at Mesolithic Quedlinburg in Eastern Germany). They're the most HG admixed samples (54%) in this paper, and their HG input is modelled as Loschbour + Villabruna/KO1, so less eastern-shifted than your usual WHG. The third guy belongs to I2a1.
 
Two wandering Yamnayans so (two fish-eaters buried in an extended kurgan known in English language as "mountain", no surprises so).

The Iberian samples are pre-BB.
 
I wonder then if the R1b is the "WHG" part of "EHG" if that makes any sense? Could there be a reservoir of them in some as yet unsampled corner of the Balkans or the Carpathians? Or did they move down from the far north into both Central Europe and the steppes?

The autosomal admixtures of these Blatterhole samples from a burial cave are very interesting. (These are the samples which Bollingino et al sampled.) The whole set up is rather odd. There was admixture going both ways, contrary to the speculation in that paper, i.e. the "farmers", so delineated through analysis of what they consumed in terms of food, are about 40-50% WHG, and one (?) of the fisher/foragers is 25% EEF, and yet despite using the same burial cave the two groups led very separate and distinct lives.

See our discussions of Bollongino et al:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...-mtDNA-in-Central-Europe?highlight=Bollongino

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ing-genetic-distinctness?highlight=Bollongino

As I noted above, the conclusions were incorrect. They were not genetically distinct and had admixed extensively.

Maybe this was one very admixed family? I have to check if they did an IBD analysis. Or perhaps, as I think Jean Manco speculated at the time that Bollongino et al came out, this was admixture with a recently arrived group from further north? That might make sense given the Baltic region R1b?

It seems, too, that fishing was the way that these foragers found to maintain their lifestyle and resist farming, given that the game would either have fled or been severely depleted by the more numerous farmers.

I think it's pretty clear that it's indeed difficult for hunter-gatherers to adopt the farming lifestyle: they just don't like it, period. This is 2,000 years after the arrival of farming, correct?

This might also explain why there are in some Neolithic settlements so few marine remains. Maybe it was a sort of split of the resources leading to relative peace between the two groups.

I have to read the paper more carefully when I get a chance. Does anyone know if the pre or para E-V13 sample and the J2a are the same samples from Lengyel which were already published, or are they new?

Nice to know it's J2a anyway. Is it resolved enough to know where it appears as far as modern distribution?

What about ATP3?
 
In Latvia 1000s of years later in Curonia coast..
"In Curonia, the Livonian language and culture also came under heavy pressure, but here it retained a last foothold on the outermost tip of the Curonian Peninsula. Several factors made sure that in this area, known as Līvõd rānda, the Livonian Coast, Latvian culture was too weak to assimilate the Livonians. For one thing, the society of the Livonians living in this area was exclusively sea-oriented and based on fishing, while that of the Latvians in the interior was exclusively land-oriented and mostly agricultural. This meant there was not a lot of interaction between the two groups."
 
I2375 TISO_1b ALPc_MN I2a2a1b1 Tiszadob-´Oken´ez 5300–4900 bc
I2377 TISO_13a ALPc_MN I2a2a Tiszadob-´Oken´ez 5208–4942 bc
I2379 HELI_11a ALPc_MN Hejokurt-Lidl 5209–4912 bc
I2a2a1b (x I2a2a1b1)
I4188 POPI_5a ALPc_MN I2a2a Polgar-Piocas 5300–4900 bc ...
I2793 GEN_67 Tiszapolgar_ECA 4444–4257bc
I2a2a1b (xI2a2a1b1)
I2467 Inventario 0/4 Iberia_CA I2a2a El Sotillo 2481–2212bc
I2473 ES-6G-110 Iberia_CA I2a2a El Sotillo 2916–2714 bc
I3269 LY.II.A.10.15066 Iberia_CA I2a2a Las Yurdinas II 3350–2750 bc
https://sway.com/Af7wxNjs1ZCdAZsi
 
A good example; just imagine how many fish-eaters R1b could be in Atlantic Europe living side to side with EEF.
 
A good example; just imagine how many fish-eaters R1b could be in Atlantic Europe living side to side with EEF.

why would they have been R1b?

either these Atlantic fish-eaters became extinct or they integrated in the neolithic, most likely in the megalithic
that is where R1b should have been observed then, I guess
 
Yes, it's R1 and R1b1 (there's also another R at Mesolithic Quedlinburg in Eastern Germany). They're the most HG admixed samples (54%) in this paper, and their HG input is modelled as Loschbour + Villabruna/KO1, so less eastern-shifted than your usual WHG. The third guy belongs to I2a1.

the one with the HG lifestyle is the I2a1
the R1 and R1b1 + the 4th one all had farmer lifestyle
but admixture here was much higher than elsewhere
 
There were in Europe R1b WHG, if they spread to the Baltic they were capable to do the travel NW also. For their integration with farmers it could be similar as that done with I2, but I can't deny that some could copy their lifestyle and spread a culture more suitable for harsh areas.
 
the one with the HG lifestyle is the I2a1
the R1 and R1b1 + the 4th one all had farmer lifestyle
but admixture here was much higher than elsewhere

when I think about it, these R1 and R1b1 probably came from SW Asia, just like the R1b-V88 in Els Trocs
in Eastern Europe they all were R1b-P297, and these here probably were not
 
I think G and H2 arrived in SW Asia from India during LGM, bringing geometric microliths to Kebaran and Zarzian.
Geometric microliths were invented in India 35 ka.
Already before LGM monsoon winds shifted and desertification started, with the Thar desert expanding all over northwest India & Pakistan.

439_2017_1773_Fig5_HTML.gif


in this scheme, H4 = H2
other H started to expand in India before LGM, but G1, G2 and H2 (H4 in the pic) expanded only after LGM
also F1, F2 and F3 are Indian or in Indochina or SW China now
 
Two wandering Yamnayans so (two fish-eaters buried in an extended kurgan known in English language as "mountain", no surprises so).

The Iberian samples are pre-BB.

Since when did Yamnayans belong to R1* and R1b1*? These are lineages that date back to the Palaeolithic and formed respectively 23,000 and 20,000 years ago according to Yfull, at the time of the LGM. Over 15,000 years separate them from the lineages found in Yamna!
 
when I think about it, these R1 and R1b1 probably came from SW Asia, just like the R1b-V88 in Els Trocs
in Eastern Europe they all were R1b-P297, and these here probably were not

No, I think they are just Palaeolithic remnants, otherwise they would have been reported as R1b-V88.
 
No, I think they are just Palaeolithic remnants, otherwise they would have been reported as R1b-V88.

I'm not saying they were R1b-V88, but IMO they were moving along the same migration routes as R1b-V88.

They seem to have been acting slightly different from other LBK arrivals though, hence the high level of integration with local HG.
 
both Barcin Neo and first European farmers were FEF
FEF is modelled as an admixture of WHG, Iran Neo and Levant Neo.
So WHG was also present in Anatolia.
I think the admixture started with obsidian trade from Cappadocia, which started 16 ka, about the TMRCA of G2a, and with fishermen moving along the south Anatolian shores and into the Aegean. That is witnessed by the first exploration of Cyprus 12.5 ka and arrival of Melos obsidian in the Peleponesos 13 ka.

6394626553_c6a551afba_b.jpg

Hasan Dag in Cappadocia
I have been there once
it's a magic place
 
Since when did Yamnayans belong to R1* and R1b1*? These are lineages that date back to the Palaeolithic and formed respectively 23,000 and 20,000 years ago according to Yfull, at the time of the LGM. Over 15,000 years separate them from the lineages found in Yamna!

I doubt they are R1* and R1b1* and R* (in the case of Quedlinburg) - looks like they haven't been further defined due to coverage issues.

I wonder then if the R1b is the "WHG" part of "EHG" if that makes any sense? Could there be a reservoir of them in some as yet unsampled corner of the Balkans or the Carpathians? Or did they move down from the far north into both Central Europe and the steppes?

The autosomal admixtures of these Blatterhole samples from a burial cave are very interesting. (These are the samples which Bollingino et al sampled.) The whole set up is rather odd. There was admixture going both ways, contrary to the speculation in that paper, i.e. the "farmers", so delineated through analysis of what they consumed in terms of food, are about 40-50% WHG, and one (?) of the fisher/foragers is 25% EEF, and yet despite using the same burial cave the two groups led very separate and distinct lives.

As I noted above, the conclusions were incorrect. They were not genetically distinct and had admixed extensively.

Maybe this was one very admixed family? I have to check if they did an IBD analysis. Or perhaps, as I think Jean Manco speculated at the time that Bollongino et al came out, this was admixture with a recently arrived group from further north? That might make sense given the Baltic region R1b?

Yes, I think that R1b looks like it came from the 'WHG' portion. Though I don't understand why you'd see it as coming from the north, when there's R1b1 in Italy 2000-5000 years before the first great apes set foot in the Baltics and Fennoscandia. Those northern hunters came from the south with the Epipaleolithic Azillian-Federmesser complex centered in France & Spain.

I'd think that the route many already inferred from the structure of R1b will hold true after all: West Asia -> Kosovo (M269) -> Southern Italy -> Spain/France.
 
Last edited:
I'd think that the route many already inferred from the structure of R1b will hold true after all: West Asia -> Kosovo (M269) -> Southern Italy -> Spain/France.

Kosovo (M269)
which one is this ?
 

This thread has been viewed 56935 times.

Back
Top