Funnel Beaker in Gotland

[Angela]

Magdalena Fraser et al...
"[h=1]New insights on cultural dualism and population structure in the Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture on the island of Gotland"[/h]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X17303231

"In recent years it has been shown that the Neolithization of Europe was partly driven by migration of farming groups admixing with local hunter-gatherer groups as they dispersed across the continent. However, little research has been done on the cultural duality of contemporaneous foragers and farming populations in the same region. Here we investigate the demographic history of the Funnel Beaker culture [Trichterbecherkultur or TRB, c. 4000–2800 cal BCE], and the sub-Neolithic Pitted Ware culture complex [PWC, c. 3300–2300 cal BCE] during the Nordic Middle Neolithic period on the island of Gotland, Sweden. We use a multidisciplinary approach to investigate individuals buried in the Ansarve dolmen, the only confirmed TRB burial on the island. We present new radiocarbon dating, isotopic analyses for diet and mobility, and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup data to infer maternal inheritance. We also present a new Sr-baseline of 0.71208 ± 0.0016 for the local isotope variation. We compare and discuss our findings together with that of contemporaneous populations in Sweden and the North European mainland.The radiocarbon dating and Strontium isotopic ratios show that the dolmen was used between c. 3300–2700 cal BCE by a population which displayed local Sr-signals. Mitochondrial data show that the individuals buried in the Ansarve dolmen had maternal genetic affinity to that of other Early and Middle Neolithic farming cultures in Europe, distinct from that of the contemporaneous PWC on the island. Furthermore, they exhibited a strict terrestrial and/or slightly varied diet in contrast to the strict marine diet of the PWC. The findings indicate that two different contemporary groups coexisted on the same island for several hundred years with separate cultural identity, lifestyles, as well as dietary patterns."

 

[Promenade]

In South Asia we see a similar situation where Hunter Gatherers and incoming farmers did not just tolerate each others existence, they mutually benefited from one another.

There are misconceptions about the farming lifestyle being favorable to that of the HG when in reality the HG lifestyle is less strenuous and more energy efficient. Many HGs probably made a conscious decision not to adopt farming since farming is only necessary when you need to extract the full efficiency of the land to support an increasing population. The HG population was most likely stable (HGs usually space out having children due to migration patterns as opposed to sedentary populations which aren't restricted by being constantly on the move) and weighing the opportunity costs they probably saw no need to give up their traditional lifestyle. We know Early Farmers in Europe started mixing with HGs in the balkans early on, so it is not like farmers were intolerant of them. Also HGs knew the ins and out of every plant, knew how to plant and even practiced a form slash and burn cultivation to encourage and discourage growth of certain plant species. Their knowledge about agriculture was certainly not as complete as the actual farmers, but it is not impossible that they could have also developed farming independently after contacting farming populations.

Why is this important? The late neolithic increase of WHG ancestry in west and central Europe could be a direct result of parallel HGs civilizations coexisting with farming populations and benefiting from material exchange with farmers. Farmers would have provided advanced tools and pottery, crops(probably surplus grains), textiles, domesticated animals and miscellaneous curiosities to HGs, meanwhile HGs would have provided large game, fish and forest products farmers couldn't procure easily. It's simple to see who benefits from this relationship more and calorie per calorie the HGs would have been the primary benefactors. For the HGs who did not adopt farming they must have experienced a sort renaissance, but they would have eventually become increasingly dependent on trade with farmers. Population size would also continue to grow for both Farmers and HGs and as population density increased the need to maximize the output of the land would eventually drive the HGs to join the farmers in practicing agriculture. This would have provided the wave of increased WHG we see enter neolithic populations in west and central Europe.

The peculiarity remains though as to why it was so sex biased. Perhaps the HGs had adopted a semi-pastoralist lifestyle from the domestic animals they had received from the farmers. Livestock was the petrodollar of the ancient world and it would have made the HGs more economically viable in farming societies and thus more likely to procreate.

 

[bicicleur 2]

why has haplo O become so dominant in southeast Asia and is so little left of the original HG haplos D, C1b and K2 ?
in Europe I1, I2, R1 managed to survive and to expand again later on

 

[Angela]

Hunter-gatherer societies always existed on the brink of extinction. Their numbers had to be kept low because they couldn't out breed their resources. Whether they practiced some sort of infanticide to accomplish that, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

When the farmers arrived in Europe, the hunter-gatherers, and often hunter-gatherer-fishers, were already more or less sedentary, usually centered around areas where there was a lot of fish, like the Iron Gates or around the Baltic. The Balkans were almost empty except around the Gates.

We have no precise idea what the relationships were like between these two groups of people in those areas where they were in contact. My own speculation, given what I know of human nature, and from encounters between European settlers and Amerindians in North America, is that there was probably a certain amount of hostility and perhaps then a sort of stalemate until either the farmers out bred the hunter-gatherers, or the farmers were unsuccessful because of the climate and the terrain.

 

[bicicleur 2]

in southeast Asia farmers arrived from China during 3000 years wave after wave coming from China : autronesian, austro-asiatic, mon-khmer, tai-kadang .. and they seem to have been quite hostile to each other sometimes

in Europe it lasted only 1000 years : from 8.6 ka in NW Anatolia till 7.6 the LBK expansion, and they were allways the same people, autosomal EEF, Y-DNA mainly G2a2, coming from Cappadocia and the Konya plain, all later farmers expansions seem to have come from inside Europe by European farmers admixed with European HG (actually the Konya plain seems to have become more or less deserted after 7.5 ka)
in the end the LBK seem to have been quite hostile to each other too, till they were replaced by other, more sucessfull farmers

 

[Promenade]

Hunter-gatherer societies always existed on the brink of extinction. Their numbers had to be kept low because they couldn't out breed their resources. Whether they practiced some sort of infanticide to accomplish that, I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

When the farmers arrived in Europe, the hunter-gatherers, and often hunter-gatherer-fishers, were already more or less sedentary, usually centered around areas where there was a lot of fish, like the Iron Gates or around the Baltic. The Balkans were almost empty except around the Gates.

We have no precise idea what the relationships were like between these two groups of people in those areas where they were in contact. My own speculation, given what I know of human nature, and from encounters between European settlers and Amerindians in North America, is that there was probably a certain amount of hostility and perhaps then a sort of stalemate until either the farmers out bred the hunter-gatherers, or the farmers were unsuccessful because of the climate and the terrain.

If they practiced infanticide I think we would have found a lot of dead newborns around HG settlements by now, most likely with human inflicted wounds or signs of abandonment. Also modern HGs in Papua New Guinea, the Amazons and Africa all don't practice infanticide either. It doesn't seem logical for a mother to go through the labors of 9 months of pregnancy and then kill the child in the context of a HG society. In a semi nomadic population births are usually spaced over a couple year interval because you can only carry so many children at a time. It is likely that Europe HGs were at least semi-nomadic as to not exhaust resources in one area, still this implies some form of birth control. HGs are also very hardy people, I'm not sure it's fair to say they were living on the brink of extinction when the majority of human history consisted of the Hunter Gather lifestyle. In the America's north of meso-america it was the Mississippian farming populations that failed and the HGs who survived until contact with the old world. So far human history has shown HGing as relatively robust. That's not to romanticize it, but it is a much more sustainable form of existence than farming and it has been around for a much longer time.



There were obviously other HGs in the balkans other than Iron Gates too, since later Eneolithic Romanians living near the area did not receive their WHG ancestry from Iron Gates, implying another group of HGs not just in the balkans, but close by in Romania. The comparison to the European colonization of the America's might not be so relevant since the Europeans brought guns, horses, religious fervor and a racial hierarchy, while comparatively the farmers brought grains and a lifestyle. We also do have somewhat of an idea of how they interacted since we have a pure WHG practicing farming in Koros prior to 5,500bc, populations lacking EEF ancestry practicing farming in the baltics and widespread evidence of cultural and genetic exchange between farmers and HGs, the only area that lacked WHG ancestry was the Peloponnese. Dietary shifts towards a terrestrial source happen in Lepesnki Vir point to a mesolithic population that began to adopt farming aspects either through cultural exchange or mingling with immigrants from the near east very early on. I don't think it was a dichotomy of native HGs vs Farmer immigrants, but rather a development of exchange and intermixing which became increasingly complex farther north. That does not mean it excluded violence, but rather the competition between the two was not the focal point of their relationship and exchanges might have included benefits for both populations. The sex biased resurgence of WHG ancestry from central Europe to Iberia does point to a specific event or rather a process where HGs gained the upper hand for some reason in farming communities though, at least in these regions.

why has haplo O become so dominant in southeast Asia and is so little left of the original HG haplos D, C1b and K2 ?
in Europe I1, I2, R1 managed to survive and to expand again later on

Do we even know what haplogroups south east Asian hunter gatherers had? I'm not at all familiar with the archeogenetic of south east Asia, but Austroasiatic Munda HGs in India actually carry a majority of haplogroup O themselves. Even in Europe we see that there was a wide replacement of many Paleolithic HG lineages before the neolithic and the spread of farming, probably related to the changes at the end of the LGM and similar events may have taken place in Asia. We don't have any ancient dna yet from South Asia either, but we do have archeological evidence of semi-nomadic HGs coexisting next to urban civilizations in the Indus for thousands of years, although these people increasingly adopted a pastoral lifestyle over time.



There isn't a law for how HGs and Farmers will interact with each other, we know the bantu migrations into east Africa resulted in large scale replacement too. In northern areas farming would become more difficult and the landscapes less familiar. Local HGs would have knowledge and perhaps cultural institutions to offer farmers in these situations and become more prominent in northern areas like Europe. We can see parallels in East Asia where haplogroup D is still found frequently in Japan, especially the northern part.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I didn't know about Autronesian Munda HG.
I checked, and I see they are Austroasatic agriculturalists.
As I mentioned above Austrasiatic (and Austronesian too) is one of the language groups associated with expansion of Chinese rice and/or millet farmers that started about 4 ka.

All southeast Asia and the northeast of South Asia speak such languages and the agricultural expansions are confirmed by archeology.
We have neolithic Chinese DNA which is haplo O and some haplo N up in the northern early millet farmers/gatherers. We don't have mesolithic DNA.
From the subclades in anciant DNA and present DNA and from the archeological record it seems pretty clear that the Austronesians, who now live from Madagascar up to Polynesia all originated in the early Yangzi delta neolithic. In the later expansion process they did mix with some Papuans though.
We have sundadont associated with southern HG and sinodont with farmers and northern HG, but Jomon Japanese HG were sinodont.
It's a bet, but it looks like D, C1b and K2 were HG and O were Chinese farmers.
Papuans and Australian aboriginees are C1b and K2 and negrito HG are C1b, K2 and D apart from a few O inbreds in a few tribes. The Great Andamanese are a mysterious exception to this rule, but the Onge and Jarawa are D. In Japan Jomon are supposed to have survived mainly in the northern Hokkaido, that is where the highest concentration of minority D is compared to the O majority.
The structure of the C1b, K2 and D haplogroups are with very old (45 ka) subclades, except for the Japanese Jomon.

The replacement of over 90 % of the whole Southeast Asian HG population by O farmers happened probably in just 2 decades.
It is not like what happened in Europe.

By the way, pottery and wild rice appeared gathering 20 ka south of the Yangzi, while all of a sudden farming and domesticated rice appears and even paddy fields and domesticated pigs and fowl and water buffalos north of the Yangzi only 9 ka.
I believe the actual domestication of rice happened earlier on what is today the bottom of the Yellow Sea.

 

[Promenade]

I didn't know about Autronesian Munda HG.
I checked, and I see they are Austroasatic agriculturalists.
As I mentioned above Austrasiatic (and Austronesian too) is one of the language groups associated with expansion of Chinese rice and/or millet farmers that started about 4 ka.

All southeast Asia and the northeast of South Asia speak such languages and the agricultural expansions are confirmed by archeology.
We have neolithic Chinese DNA which is haplo O and some haplo N up in the northern early millet farmers/gatherers. We don't have mesolithic DNA.
From the subclades in anciant DNA and present DNA and from the archeological record it seems pretty clear that the Austronesians, who now live from Madagascar up to Polynesia all originated in the early Yangzi delta neolithic. In the later expansion process they did mix with some Papuans though.
We have sundadont associated with southern HG and sinodont with farmers and northern HG, but Jomon Japanese HG were sinodont.
It's a bet, but it looks like D, C1b and K2 were HG and O were Chinese farmers.
Papuans and Australian aboriginees are C1b and K2 and negrito HG are C1b, K2 and D apart from a few O inbreds in a few tribes. The Great Andamanese are a mysterious exception to this rule, but the Onge and Jarawa are D. In Japan Jomon are supposed to have survived mainly in the northern Hokkaido, that is where the highest concentration of minority D is compared to the O majority.
The structure of the C1b, K2 and D haplogroups are with very old (45 ka) subclades, except for the Japanese Jomon.

The replacement of over 90 % of the whole Southeast Asian HG population by O farmers happened probably in just 2 decades.
It is not like what happened in Europe.

By the way, pottery and wild rice appeared gathering 20 ka south of the Yangzi, while all of a sudden farming and domesticated rice appears and even paddy fields and domesticated pigs and fowl and water buffalos north of the Yangzi only 9 ka.
I believe the actual domestication of rice happened earlier on what is today the bottom of the Yellow Sea.

Yep you are correct Austro Asiatic speaking, they are agriculturists now but originally Hunter Gatherers. I mentioned that though because it isn't clear if there was a shift in paternal ancestry from the Paleolithic to the mesolithic in South Asia like in Europe. It was probably different for East/South-east and South Asia, but my guess is in South Asia some haplogroups like H and R2 might have already been wisespread during the Mesolithic instead of having been brought by farmers.

Thats an interesting theory, there probably are some early farming civilizations that were flooded and now lost under the waves. You have to think at first they didn't have the most sophisticated irrigation practices and had to farm in lowland areas or deltas that were easily flooded and would have been lost as sea levels increased.

 

[I1a3_Young]

Magdalena Fraser et al...
"[h=1]New insights on cultural dualism and population structure in the Middle Neolithic Funnel Beaker culture on the island of Gotland"[/h]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X17303231

"In recent years it has been shown that the Neolithization of Europe was partly driven by migration of farming groups admixing with local hunter-gatherer groups as they dispersed across the continent. However, little research has been done on the cultural duality of contemporaneous foragers and farming populations in the same region. Here we investigate the demographic history of the Funnel Beaker culture [Trichterbecherkultur or TRB, c. 4000–2800 cal BCE], and the sub-Neolithic Pitted Ware culture complex [PWC, c. 3300–2300 cal BCE] during the Nordic Middle Neolithic period on the island of Gotland, Sweden. We use a multidisciplinary approach to investigate individuals buried in the Ansarve dolmen, the only confirmed TRB burial on the island. We present new radiocarbon dating, isotopic analyses for diet and mobility, and mitochondrial DNA haplogroup data to infer maternal inheritance. We also present a new Sr-baseline of 0.71208 ± 0.0016 for the local isotope variation. We compare and discuss our findings together with that of contemporaneous populations in Sweden and the North European mainland.The radiocarbon dating and Strontium isotopic ratios show that the dolmen was used between c. 3300–2700 cal BCE by a population which displayed local Sr-signals. Mitochondrial data show that the individuals buried in the Ansarve dolmen had maternal genetic affinity to that of other Early and Middle Neolithic farming cultures in Europe, distinct from that of the contemporaneous PWC on the island. Furthermore, they exhibited a strict terrestrial and/or slightly varied diet in contrast to the strict marine diet of the PWC. The findings indicate that two different contemporary groups coexisted on the same island for several hundred years with separate cultural identity, lifestyles, as well as dietary patterns."

Very interesting. Did they use only mito haplogroups or did they get Y as well?

Götland was where Stora Förvar 11 was found who was rated a small part EEF and mostly HG. He seemed to be pre-I1 which I think is interesting because we don't have an I1 sample that isn't at least part EEF.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Angela]

Very interesting. Did they use only mito haplogroups or did they get Y as well?

Götland was where Stora Förvar 11 was found who was rated a small part EEF and mostly HG. He seemed to be pre-I1 which I think is interesting because we don't have an I1 sample that isn't at least part EEF.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Only mtDna was provided. These are the results:

"The results show that the haplogroups from the MN period of usage [K1a2b, T2b8, J1c5, HV0a, J1c8a, K2b1a and Hd7] resemble those of other European EN and MN individuals from a farming context (Fig. 5 and Table S4). The LN individual displayed Haplogroup U5b2a1a1.

Thus, contemporaneous with the earlier phase of the PWC on Gotland that date between c. 3200–2300 cal BCE (Wallin and Martinsson-Wallin, 2016).

The haplogroups K1, T2b, and HV0 have previously also been found in HVS1 sequence analyses of PWC from Gotland (Malmström et al., 2015) although haplogroup HV0 was later confirmed as haplogroup V by further analyses of mitogenomic data (Günther et al., 2015; Skoglund et al., 2012). Interestingly, the Mesolithic U5b haplogroup does not appear in the Ansarve individuals analyzed here until the LN period which is after the duration of the TRB culture. Although only a third of the individuals buried in the dolmen have yielded mtDNA results, the absence of the U′ haplogroups in the Swedish MN megalithic burials to date [n = 17] (Fig. 5), including the nine Ansarve individuals who resided on the same island as PWC for several hundred years, indicate that TRB and PWC were rather separate units and did not admix to a greater extent. This is further supported by the different dietary patterns of the two cultural groups analyzed here (Fig. 3A). Though, further investigation of the extent of admixture between these groups requires analyses of genome data."

This doesn't really surprise me. There doesn't seem to have been very much introgression of Mesolithic mtDna into the farmers even when, as here, they lived side by side for a few hundred years.

It may be partly because the farmers were not a male biased migration. In the Americas, for example, the situations were different in North vs South America. In North America, where family groups migrated, there is very little introgression of "native" dna into the new settlers. In South America, where the migration was much more heavily male in the first hundred or so years, native women and their mtDna were incorporated.

In the male line things are a bit different. Some I2 males were incorporated, and then I think those groups, with a Mesolithic y, but autosomally EEF, spread to new areas.

I don't understand what went on with I1 yet.

I wish they had gotten, or if they have it, published the y for these samples.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Very interesting. Did they use only mito haplogroups or did they get Y as well?

Götland was where Stora Förvar 11 was found who was rated a small part EEF and mostly HG. He seemed to be pre-I1 which I think is interesting because we don't have an I1 sample that isn't at least part EEF.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

SF11 was an extinct line, not ancestral to I1
apart from a few positive for I1 he had to many negatives compared to his age and the TMRCA of I1

but there may have been related tribes nearby that were ancestral

 

[I1a3_Young]

SF11 was an extinct line, not ancestral to I1
apart from a few positive for I1 he had to many negatives compared to his age and the TMRCA of I1

but there may have been related tribes nearby that were ancestral

All of the I1 more than 4600 ybp will be a dead end, the only question is how far drifted away from the surviving line. The chances of picking an exact person along the line is tiny.

 

[bicicleur 2]

All of the I1 more than 4600 ybp will be a dead end, the only question is how far drifted away from the surviving line. The chances of picking an exact person along the line is tiny.

yes, this one has quite some negatives, he's more like drifted away at 27.5 ka than at 4.6 ka

 

[I1a3_Young]

So they performed a study on PWC remains and we still don't have a single Y-DNA result of any kind from a PWC?

I'm fairly certain the I1 project would crowdfund it just to get the study to include one.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[bicicleur 2]

So they performed a study on PWC remains and we still don't have a single Y-DNA result of any kind from a PWC?

I'm fairly certain the I1 project would crowdfund it just to get the study to include one.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

we have these

Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 70 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls



Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 52 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls

Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 58 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls
Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 59 I-M170 calls



Pitted Ware 2500 BC Ire 8 I2a1b1a1-S2703 calls

it would be nice to find the I1 founding father, but I have no clue where to look for him

 

[I1a3_Young]

Thanks for that. Maybe I confused PWC with funnel beamer. Do you know of any funnel beaker Y?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Ygorcs]

The peculiarity remains though as to why it was so sex biased. Perhaps the HGs had adopted a semi-pastoralist lifestyle from the domestic animals they had received from the farmers. Livestock was the petrodollar of the ancient world and it would have made the HGs more economically viable in farming societies and thus more likely to procreate.

That's what I was going to say if you hadn't stressed it yourself first of all. Pastoralism is much more convenient and useful to a population used to HG lifestyle than the strenuous and strictly land-attached agriculture. Also, I think the HG populations must've grown much faster than they could before once they started to explore their land's natural resources more intensively in order to preserve their relative position in the half-paceful half-violent competition with the farmers and to engage in the trade of agricultural/Neolithic products that they must've relied more and more on. They also must've acquired at least some of the technologies brought by agriculturalists, which improved their own economy. So, the easiest solution to complement their hunting and gathering was to purchase (or maybe steal) easily mobile domesticated animals, like goats and cows, and have their own artificially created hunting fields.

 

[Ygorcs]

Also modern HGs in Papua New Guinea, the Amazons and Africa all don't practice infanticide either.

In the Amazon they do. A recurring theme and occasional scandal in the "White man" vs. Amerindian relations in the Amazon is what to make of the indigenous tribes' particularly shocking traditions, chief of which is the killing of mentally or physically deficient children and even, in some tribes where there is this strong superstition, also of twins. According to some anthropologists, like Everett in his long years with the Pirahã, they also view no moral quibble at killing little children who seem very ill and could probably die. The methods aren't bloody, generally they choke the baby or simply abandon them at the jungle.

The aforementioned only happens nowadays among very isolated peoples, the rest already being mostly christianized or totally used to the ethics of the wider society around them. But, anyway, keep in mind that the vast majority of the Amazonian tribes aren't pure HGs. Most tribes have been farming, though with primitive techniques, for thousands of years already, and many others are mainly hunter gatherer but often complement their diet with small-scale agriculture.

 

[Ygorcs]

In the America's north of meso-america it was the Mississippian farming populations that failed and the HGs who survived until contact with the old world. So far human history has shown HGing as relatively robust.

This statement is questionable. The already declining Mississippian culture eventually collapsed entirely in a way that perhaps even an early modern civilization would've with all the pandemics devastating it. However, most scholars believe they didn't simply vanish, rather they preserved part of their culture and retreated to a simpler economy and less complex political centralization, becoming the Muskogean-speaking tribes like the Choctaw and Seminole. That makes sense because in all the other cases of American civilizational collapses (even before pre-Columbian contact) the people itself hardly disappeared, but just went back in its social complexity and, of course, numbers.

 

[MOESAN]

we have these

Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 70 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls



Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 52 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls

Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 58 I2a1a2a1-L1287 calls
Pitted Ware 2750 BC Ajvide 59 I-M170 calls



Pitted Ware 2500 BC Ire 8 I2a1b1a1-S2703 calls

it would be nice to find the I1 founding father, but I have no clue where to look for him

If you permit a not too useful post, I would bet the modern Y-I1 sons derive from a pop which was not far from around the central south and East shores of the Baltic - I think the most of modern Y-I1 are last arrived people in Scandinavia, through South (arrived mixed with Y-R1b-U106 and some rarer Y-R1a); they were maybe stayed in refuges places in Central-North Europe, not too far from Farmers but still mostly separated, perhaps a "Y-I2a2 curtain" could have separated them from farmers more neatly: Unetice doesn't show Y-I1 but it's true the sample is to date very weak ; later they should have been swept for the most by Balts and Slavs; it's seems to me the separation between today Scandinavian and Finnish Y-I1a is clearly a Baltic fact. Bets. Happy New Year, by the fact!