Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 67 of 67

Thread: Shift from G2 to I2 dominance and WHG resurgence between the Early_N and the Late_N

  1. #51
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    You're certainly consistent: always categorizing groups into ever smaller, separate, "ethnic" groups. I wouldn't personally consider someone who is 15-20% WHG and the remainder Anatolia Neolithic, a "different ethnic group" from someone who is 30% WHG and the remainder Anatolia Neolithic, which by the end of the process, i.e. by the Middle Neolithic, is what you're looking at all across Europe.
    The highest WHG, at the start of the development, might have been even higher, but that's not decisive. What is decisive is that a significant portion of WHG was there and paternal lineages, the male clans were exclusively derived of foragers. These people were living apart, later mixture seems to have been very limited to non-existent, so they are in my book not just a subpopulation, after the Neolithic transition, but a people, a population very much apart. The material culture, even though within the wider sphere of ICC, was also different. But its still remarkable that they largely adopted the Cardial customs, they just altered and transformed them, to make them fit for their own needs. So even limited differences in the material culture could mean a lot, really a lot, in terms of ancestry and ethnicity. That's what many people claimed in the past, and its being vindicated. At the same time the cultural diffusion is not completely off too, as this locals accepted new ways on a bigger scale than aknowledged before.
    The true ICC people however moved around them, over sea and land, reaching Iberia in the West. So we deal with a situation in which, most likely, the foragers were strong enough to make a stand. The farmers tried to come to terms with them, one way or another, and the locals had enough time to adapt and, again one way or another, taking in farmer women.

    As for the excerpts above, half of my ancestry is from the Tosco-Emilian Apennines, so I try to keep abreast of the samples, and I'm not aware that any ancient samples from that area have ever been analyzed. Unless they've come across some, which would be great, there's no way they could know the proportion of WHG. It would make sense that they would adopt more foraging up there, it's true; it's terrible land for farming. Snows six months a year, and the soil is poor, as is the case in most mountainous areas, so about the only thing you can do is raise some cows. Nobody got rich off the land up there, ever. I will admit that I told Moesan repeatedly that it wasn't true that there was no "Mesolithic" survival in terms of phenotype in Italy and posted some pretty hair raising pictures of local men, and women, to prove it. :) Maybe there are some I2a men up there, although I've never seen it. Mostly R1b U-152.
    Like the I2a foragers, the incoming steppe people took in local women. That's how this ancestry survived, for the most part.

  2. #52
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post

    I wouldn't say they killed all G2a men everywhere, but the shift was happening violently and was drastic enough. There was an increase of violence and competition from the start to the end of the early Neolithic.
    There could also be other theories why HG presence increase with time. One of the facts we know is that HG and Farmer or Pastoralist did not mix at all for a very long time. There are studies which show that HG and Farmers lived for thousands of years without mixing.

    "It is commonly assumed that the European hunter-gatherers disappeared soon after the arrival of farmers", said Dr Ruth Bollongino, lead author of the study. "But our study shows that the descendants of the first European humans maintained their hunter-gatherer way of life, and lived in parallel with the immigrant farmers, for at least 2,000 years. The hunter-gathering way of life only died out in Central Europe around 5,000 years ago, much later than previously thought"
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2013/oct/...ived-side-side

    The reason why HG reemerged could be that due to some climate conditions HG had advantage over farmers or whatever other reasons that we are not aware of now, not necessarily taking over by force.

    I for instance imagine that HG had very different life style - they could not hold property and lived in small families, women did not have many children compared to farmers and they had to be very well adapted to nature, silent, unnoticeable, whereas farmers were smelly, laud, moved in large numbers, burned forest, kept animals.

    HG and Pastoralist (who for sure must have been warlike) did not had "a war" when pastoralist moved in the Eastern Baltics. In the beginning they too lived in different places (HG near rivers and lakes) pastoralist where the fertile lands were.

    CWC groups who lived at the coastline ate pigs, cattle (either goat or sheep), but also seals, and wild roe deer. Besides, they were fishing too (bones of lagoon fish were found: pike, pikeperch, bream) So the CWC economy could be different, and in some locations domestic animals were raised alongside seal hunting and fishing. No remains of cultivated plants were found only some burnt hazelnut shells and fruit of an unidentified species of sorrel (the settlement dates to 2600 BC)
    It is just an example that under some conditions HG way of live could be better adapted to local conditions, and other groups like CWC started fishing/hunting practices too that they could not do on the steppe.

  3. #53
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    There could also be other theories why HG presence increase with time. One of the facts we know is that HG and Farmer or Pastoralist did not mix at all for a very long time. There are studies which show that HG and Farmers lived for thousands of years without mixing.

    "It is commonly assumed that the European hunter-gatherers disappeared soon after the arrival of farmers", said Dr Ruth Bollongino, lead author of the study. "But our study shows that the descendants of the first European humans maintained their hunter-gatherer way of life, and lived in parallel with the immigrant farmers, for at least 2,000 years. The hunter-gathering way of life only died out in Central Europe around 5,000 years ago, much later than previously thought"
    https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2013/oct/...ived-side-side

    The reason why HG reemerged could be that due to some climate conditions HG had advantage over farmers or whatever other reasons that we are not aware of now, not necessarily taking over by force.

    I for instance imagine that HG had very different life style - they could not hold property and lived in small families, women did not have many children compared to farmers and they had to be very well adapted to nature, silent, unnoticeable, whereas farmers were smelly, laud, moved in large numbers, burned forest, kept animals.

    HG and Pastoralist (who for sure must have been warlike) did not had "a war" when pastoralist moved in the Eastern Baltics. In the beginning they too lived in different places (HG near rivers and lakes) pastoralist where the fertile lands were.

    CWC groups who lived at the coastline ate pigs, cattle (either goat or sheep), but also seals, and wild roe deer. Besides, they were fishing too (bones of lagoon fish were found: pike, pikeperch, bream) So the CWC economy could be different, and in some locations domestic animals were raised alongside seal hunting and fishing. No remains of cultivated plants were found only some burnt hazelnut shells and fruit of an unidentified species of sorrel (the settlement dates to 2600 BC)
    @Dagne: That was a position I didn't share, but which was possible to argue for before the new data came in. Now we see that in Southern France the Neolithic clans were not able or willing to replace the local HG clans, which in turn adopted Neolithic techniques and customs, took farmer wives and formed their own Neolithic community and culture. And it seems to be quite clear that the increased HG ancestry and I2a lineages spread from there, to other regions in which first farmers were established already and replaced them.
    So while individual cases of mixture and increased HG ancestry certainly took place, this big shift we are talking about happened because the more HG dominated groups expanded and partly or fully replaced the first farmer lineages in many regions of Europe.

    This mixture and takeover by local forager paternal lineages happened early on, in the early phase of the Neolithic expansion. Not later. That's what the study is proving.

  4. #54
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Somehow, it is difficult for me to imagine HG adapting to farmer ways of life, or, moreover, taking over farmer livelihood by force.
    HGs need forest, rather that farmer "property". Perhaps these were descendants of HG, who had farmers as mothers who merged with farmers, in a slow and peaceful (?) way, generation after generation.
    I could see well however, how HG could have had advantage over farmers during the years of famine. In Baltics it were more CWC who would adapt to HG ways of life, as in some conditions it is very easy to fish and but very difficult to cultivate plants (sandy dunes) or even to raise cattle (no pastures).
    The HG share increased with time, however, we still don't say that HG took over CWC in the Baltics. No, it was still the same CWC, only it developed by absorbing different peoples and traditions (more HG and a newly introduced farming culture (via CWC Western contacts).

  5. #55
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    850
    Points
    17,677
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,677, Level: 40
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 373
    Overall activity: 99.3%


    Country: Italy



    I guess what Dagne is proposing, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is a possible scenario in which they firstly mixed normally, but at certain point something happened* (climate change, for example); something that affected more farmers than those who kept some of the HG lifestyle. If so, it would not have been a replacement according to her, but just one group almost dying out, whereas the other (already mixed) "continued". It naturally implies the two groups were a bit different, but an explanation for the bias towards farmer autosomal would still lack.

    *

  6. #56
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,613
    Points
    382,013
    Level
    100
    Points: 382,013, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.7%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    @Dagne: That was a position I didn't share, but which was possible to argue for before the new data came in. Now we see that in Southern France the Neolithic clans were not able or willing to replace the local HG clans, which in turn adopted Neolithic techniques and customs, took farmer wives and formed their own Neolithic community and culture. And it seems to be quite clear that the increased HG ancestry and I2a lineages spread from there, to other regions in which first farmers were established already and replaced them.
    So while individual cases of mixture and increased HG ancestry certainly took place, this big shift we are talking about happened because the more HG dominated groups expanded and partly or fully replaced the first farmer lineages in many regions of Europe.

    This mixture and takeover by local forager paternal lineages happened early on, in the early phase of the Neolithic expansion. Not later. That's what the study is proving.
    Are we speaking about the same paper?



    In Hungary the proportions of "HG" actually seem to have gone down a bit with time in one area over time.

    In 5000 BC there's very little in Central Europe or the Pyrenees. Some, maybe 15% in southern Spain. France becomes involved from 5000 BC to 4500 BC, but the levels are about what they were in Southern Spain, or maybe it's now 20%. By 4000-3500 BC, rather than an advance where more and more WHG is picked up, I see a British Isles proportion extremely close to those of Spain and Southern France and the northern France and southwestern Germany of the prior 500 years. The only area which sees a marked increase is what looks like the border of the Benelux countries and northwestern Germany. Any movements to the area from the north or east? that would have to be investigated. Even in east Germany it looks like a mixed bag; one group has less than a quarter HG. As I said, we see it in the yDna too.

    It makes perfect sense for me. You get away from the Loess areas and get some wetter, colder weather, and someone who still does a lot of fishing and hunting might start to look more attractive.

    It looks as if the only farmer groups which really didn't want to mix much were the groups from just north of the Balkans, but from what I remember, there weren't many hunter-gatherers there to start with, and Mathiesen said a while ago that the groups there didn't seem to spread northward much, and not westward. It makes sense, the admixture is going to take place on the frontier, not back in the "homeland".

    That's what I see from the yDna and mtDna of the various cultures too. Proportions could vary from settlement to settlement; lots of founder effect, drift, and patrilocality from what I can see. The Neolithic didn't need the steppe people to bring that in.


    According to this, the far northeast actually saw the first admixture. Anyone have data as to whether it's farmer mtDna? If so, where did they get the women? That part of Europe is not my area of expertise.

    I think Dagne is on the right track, although the ultimate proportions were still heavily skewed toward Anatolian Neolithic, with only certain areas reaching as high as 30% HG.

    Oh, and there are no samples from either the Tyrennhian or Adriatic side of Italy, so all of that is complete speculation on the part of the writers.


    The British changed a lot; southern Europeans less...anyway, this is the trail. (Cassidy et al)


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  7. #57
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    Somehow, it is difficult for me to imagine HG adapting to farmer ways of life, or, moreover, taking over farmer livelihood by force.
    HGs need forest, rather that farmer "property". Perhaps these were descendants of HG, who had farmers as mothers who merged with farmers, in a slow and peaceful (?) way, generation after generation.
    I could see well however, how HG could have had advantage over farmers during the years of famine. In Baltics it were more CWC who would adapt to HG ways of life, as in some conditions it is very easy to fish and but very difficult to cultivate plants (sandy dunes) or even to raise cattle (no pastures).
    The HG share increased with time, however, we still don't say that HG took over CWC in the Baltics. No, it was still the same CWC, only it developed by absorbing different peoples and traditions (more HG and a newly introduced farming culture (via CWC Western contacts).
    They were HG lineages, clans in Southern France/Northern Italy, but they became farmers, Neolithics themselves, but sticked to their own clan. That's the point. They were not staying foragers, they became farmers, but it was a HG clan which did so in this area and kept other farmers, the original Neolithics, away from its area. The transition seems to have been coming from the female side more than the male. Early farming was, to a large degree, a female business. So what I'm proposing is that a HG clan took farmer wives, one way or another, and some techniques, by some sort of contact, and by doing so adopted a lot from the Cardial, but with their own adaptation, in their own style. They expanded over other, probably unmixed foragers and later replaced even a lot of their Neolithic competitors. The early Cardial people, from which they had their Neolithic culture and wives, tried to avoid them it seems, and moved around them on to Iberia.

    @Angela:
    France becomes involved from 5000 BC to 4500 BC, but the levels are about what they were in Southern Spain, or maybe it's now 20%. By 4000-3500 BC, rather than an advance where more and more WHG is picked up, I see a British Isles proportion extremely close to those of Spain and Southern France and the northern France and southwestern Germany of the prior 500 years. The only area which sees a marked increase is what looks like the border of the Benelux countries and northwestern Germany. Any movements to the area from the north or east? that would have to be investigated. Even in east Germany it looks like a mixed bag; one group has less than a quarter HG. As I said, we see it in the yDna too.
    The original HG clan based Southern French Neolithics had a significantly higher proportion of WHG ancestry and what the paper is stating is that the WHG ancestry and I2a's expansion on a large scale in Western Europe can be attributed to these Southern French tribes moving out and expanding in different directions. Let's assume that the original clan had about 30-40 percent WHG ancestry and was 100 percent I2a, what you see in many places where they moved to is an increase of WHG ancestry and a strong dominance, if not total replacement, of other farmer lineages, like G2/H2 in particular, while we have later in Michelsberg an alliance with E1b.

    Just assume most of the HG ancestry is indeed from the South, with the PWC being on a low level, and can be explained like you said, by individuals assimilated here and there, we deal with a replacement rate of 40-50 percent of the original ICC and LBK people, where they were affected by these expansion. That's actually pretty close to the BB expansion in Iberia, its almost the same pattern.

    I repeat how the paper sums it up:
    In accordance with the established chronology of first Neolithic settlements in the French territory, the overlapping/synchronous date estimates obtained for southern ICC sites are consistent with the signal of a first HG contribution in the south of France, followed by a subsequent northward expansion of groups carrying this HG legacy

    They tested for where this additional HG ancestry which spread in the Middle Neolithic was coming from and they concluded it came from the deviating, HG-dominated groups in the South of France. The local HG input was minimal, only significant in the North with a minor PWC contribution. But that's not it, at least not in the West. There we deal with a large scale expansion and replacement, most likely from this Southern French I2a clan.

  8. #58
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    17,613
    Points
    382,013
    Level
    100
    Points: 382,013, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.7%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    ^^Sorry, all speculation and supposition unsupported by data for each point, and in fact contradicts the graph from the paper.

    Not my style; not into fantasizing.

  9. #59
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsThree Friends
    Regio X's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-03-14
    Posts
    850
    Points
    17,677
    Level
    40
    Points: 17,677, Level: 40
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 373
    Overall activity: 99.3%


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    G-L497 is one of the best to check imo in BAM files because L497 SNP has lots of equivalents. It helps.
    Obviously I'm talking here on full developed G-L497 (based on current modern people tested) and descendants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    I guess what Dagne is proposing, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is a possible scenario in which they firstly mixed normally, but at certain point something happened* (climate change, for example); something that affected more farmers than those who kept some of the HG lifestyle. If so, it would not have been a replacement according to her, but just one group almost dying out, whereas the other (already mixed) "continued". It naturally implies the two groups were a bit different, but an explanation for the bias towards farmer autosomal would still lack.
    I don't know... If something such climate change happened and affected farmers even before Steppe invasion, explaining this supposed replacement of G by I, it remains the question on why G2a would have survived in some other areas such Central Europe and "Old Europe". But they remained G, T etc. till the arrival of Steppe folks, no? So... Perhaps some "boundaries" were substantially affected, as Angela suggested (if I got it right). In LN Switzerland - and possibly in parts of Germany - G2a was replaced directly by R1b, who at the end also replaced the I2 guys in the more Western parts after Neolithic. The replacement by R1b is pretty clear, since we have the "before" and the "after", but I still cannot visualize it with I2 vs G2a (say, a place once richer in hg G2a that at the end became richer in hg I2). If they exist, I cannot remember. Perhaps Iberia? Anyway, if it's true, I2 rich folks could have "infiltrated" farmer communities heavily till certain point, but could not go further for whatever reason.
    Either way, as Riverman suggested, lifestyle could have been a plus for certain groups in certain places and times.
    The reality must have been way more complex than what we can imagine though.

  10. #60
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    They were HG lineages, clans in Southern France/Northern Italy, but they became farmers, Neolithics themselves, but sticked to their own clan. That's the point. They were not staying foragers, they became farmers, but it was a HG clan which did so in this area and kept other farmers, the original Neolithics, away from its area. The transition seems to have been coming from the female side more than the male. Early farming was, to a large degree, a female business. So what I'm proposing is that a HG clan took farmer wives, one way or another, and some techniques, by some sort of contact, and by doing so adopted a lot from the Cardial, but with their own adaptation, in their own style. They expanded over other, probably unmixed foragers and later replaced even a lot of their Neolithic competitors. The early Cardial people, from which they had their Neolithic culture and wives, tried to avoid them it seems, and moved around them on to Iberia.
    Ok this is your hypothesis.
    I could think of other ideas too how to explain HG expansion.
    I know more about HG who lived in the Baltic so I take examples from these type of HG, but perhaps French HG might have been similar?


    Excavations in the Šventoji settlement [5, 6] revealed three beautiful ritual bone staffs with she-elk head tops (Fig. 1) [5]. Such staffs may have been used for performing pre-hunting rites. In eastern Lithuania and in Latvia numerous deer figurines have been found. From analogy with other mythologies, we can suppose that people of Nemunas and Narva cultures considered the Goddess-elk or Goddess-deer to have specific power, such as life-, fertility- and birth-giving. Even the present Lithuanian Advent songs mention a she-deer with nine horns. Some European myths reveal two she-elks, women, birth-givers of the world [7].
    Fig. 1. One of the ritual bone staffs with a she-elk head found in the Šventoji settlement (2400 B.C.).
    It is also probable that Neolithic people worshiped the grass-snake which is often represented by bone and horn figurines and frequently in pottery decoration [8]. Primeval worship of gods and demons in the shape of animals expressed the idea of human identification with them after death, metempsychosis. An important place in cultic rites was given to fire [9, 10].In the Neolithic, anthropomorphic gods appear as evidenced by a two-meter high wooden sculpture found in the Šventoji settlement (Fig. 2.) [5], by amber figurines of the Juodkrantė (Schwarzort) settlement [11], by a bone figurine found near the Kretuonas lake [12] and the Nida pottery decorations [13]. A number of bone and clay figurines of antropomorphic beings has been found in the Neolithic settlements in eastern Latvia [14].There is no doubt that in the Early Neolithic the people of Nemunas and Narva cultures lived in a matriarchal community.
    http://www.lithuanian.net/mitai/cosmos/baltai.htm


    So overall, it does not seem that HG decided whom to take like wives, not to speak about going and killing farmers to take their wives. Eskimo like communities in the Siberian North were very peaceful up until historic times. In order to kill a seal they had the shaman to perform a ritual, asking for seal's spirit forgiveness and begging the seal god to send one of its children to sacrifice itself for people. Only after praying like this they would go to hunt, and use the hunted seal for the benefit of all community, spreading the hunted spoils equally to those who needed rather than developing the property of families like farmers did. So I would not compare HG lifestyle to that of farmers.

    We don't know how the HG spread to farmer communities. I could create a story like like this - in a time of famine some farmer women, instead of perishing from hunger with their clan, would go to forest and cling to hunter communities, then after living in close proximity for let's say a long winter they would get pregnant, but with spring time they would want to leave back to farmer communities. (HG did not have slaves, so there was no one stopping them from going where ever they wanted).
    The lifestyles or farmers and hunters must have differed drastically, and one must have detested/found unacceptable the other. After some time, back in farmer communities, farmer women who returned from forest gave birth to half farmer half hunter babies who were raised like farmers. And - voila - we have an increase in hunter gatherer genes among farmers.

  11. #61
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Regio X View Post
    I guess what Dagne is proposing, and she can correct me if I'm wrong, is a possible scenario in which they firstly mixed normally, but at certain point something happened* (climate change, for example); something that affected more farmers than those who kept some of the HG lifestyle. If so, it would not have been a replacement according to her, but just one group almost dying out, whereas the other (already mixed) "continued". It naturally implies the two groups were a bit different, but an explanation for the bias towards farmer autosomal would still lack.
    *
    Inasmuch as I remember farmers were very fertile compared to hunter gatherers - for the farmer accumulating wealth meant having as many as possible children, as these meant working force/prosperity/security. Hunter gatherers could perhaps sustain better under some conditions, but overall were pushed away by farmers from warm/fertile regions to North/East where farmers could not live because of swampy forest, taiga.

    However, HG community would not expand even in good times, like farmers or pastoralists did (who most probably had a lifestyle where accumulating wealth and influence was the target)

  12. #62
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    Inasmuch as I remember farmers were very fertile compared to hunter gatherers - for the farmer accumulating wealth meant having as many as possible children, as these meant working force/prosperity/security. Hunter gatherers could perhaps sustain better under some conditions, but overall were pushed away by farmers from warm/fertile regions to North/East where farmers could not live because of swampy forest, taiga.
    Foragers were the strongest when they could combine rich aquatic resources with hunting and gathering in forests. This was the case in Northern Europe and in the river zones of the North Pontic in particular, where the hunter gatherer were on par with the Neolithics for quite long.

    However, HG community would not expand even in good times, like farmers or pastoralists did (who most probably had a lifestyle where accumulating wealth and influence was the target)
    That's not true. They adapted to the circumstances, which means less children, probably more abortions and infanticides, if the situation was desperate, but rapid expansions if possible. That's how humans populated the world and repopulated e.g. after the Ice Age or replaced weaker, less competitive forager groups. The idea of the stable hunter gatherers comes mostly from places where no innovation and expansion took place any more and the foragers adapted to the carryong capacity of their region. But that was only a phase for most of the forager cultures. Some were caught in it, at the fringes, but of course, hunter gatherers did expand big time on various occasions.

    This case however is different, because its a hunter clan transitioning to a Neolithic lifestyle with farmer wives.

  13. #63
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Foragers were the strongest when they could combine rich aquatic resources with hunting and gathering in forests. This was the case in Northern Europe and in the river zones of the North Pontic in particular, where the hunter gatherer were on par with the Neolithics for quite long.



    That's not true. They adapted to the circumstances, which means less children, probably more abortions and infanticides, if the situation was desperate, but rapid expansions if possible. That's how humans populated the world and repopulated e.g. after the Ice Age or replaced weaker, less competitive forager groups. The idea of the stable hunter gatherers comes mostly from places where no innovation and expansion took place any more and the foragers adapted to the carryong capacity of their region. But that was only a phase for most of the forager cultures. Some were caught in it, at the fringes, but of course, hunter gatherers did expand big time on various occasions.

    This case however is different, because its a hunter clan transitioning to a Neolithic lifestyle with farmer wives.
    I don't believe it that a hunter gatherer could be turned into a farmer. And yes, farmers were much more fertile than hunter gatherers. Besides, hunter gatherers lived in small groups and their density had never been high. It is a very different way of life from farmers. Now you describe a situation "HG taking farmer wives" it is not working, as living in farmer community would mean eating different food, having to work, not being able to hunt/fish as farmers were too noisy, they burned forest which was sacred for HG and which was the main source for their food and livelihood. So it must have been absolutely intolerable for a pure HG to be turned into farmer be it a man or a woman.

    This is from a study of 2016 where HG and early Neolithic Farmer ways of life are describe connecting it to fertility and neolithic expansion
    https://www.pnas.org/content/113/17/4694

    The Neolithic transition was associated with sedentarization, food storage, wealth accumulation, and wealth inequality as well as increasing population size (3, 4, 6, 7). It has been suggested that cultivation increased calorie availability which, combined with a reduction in energy expenditure resulting from sedentarization, led to increased energy availability for reproduction (810). As a result, although exact estimates vary, it has been argued that average population growth rates rose from <0.001% to ∼0.04% per year during the early Neolithic (6, 8, 1117).The transition to agriculture in the Neolithic significantly depressed health, the overall fitness payoff was greater.

    Therefore, the proposed quality–quantity trade-off provides an adaptive mechanism that reconciles deteriorating health, increased mortality, and demographic expansion following the spread of agriculture in the Neolithic. Finally, because high fertility rates were accompanied by relatively high mortality rates, the trade-off also explains why population numbers did not explode during the Neolithic but instead increased relatively slowly (
    8), perhaps because large increases in fertility were matched by increases in mortality (17).

    Research reveals increased prevalence of tuberculosis, syphilis, and the plague (6, 2325), overall immunological stress (26), and a deterioration in oral health (16, 27, 28). Farming led to higher population densities, sedentarization, increased contact with neighboring populations, the presence of rodents attracted by food stores, the domestication of animals, and fecal pollution (2931). All those factors facilitated the spread of virulent bacterial and viral pathogens as well as soil-borne helminths (roundworm, hookworm, and whipworm) (3238). Although some argue that Paleolithic foragers experienced high helminth loads (37, 39, 40), archaeological data instead show an increase in helminths in farming populations (33, 4145) as compared with mobile, low-density hunter-gatherers. In summary, the overall effect of agriculture on health was a trend toward increasing morbidity and mortality (16, 19, 28, 46), although the intensity of the trend exhibits some regional variation and inconsistencies (4756).


    So do you think hunter gatherers who lived freely wanted to become farmers?


  14. #64
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    I don't believe it that a hunter gatherer could be turned into a farmer.
    Most HG were reluctant, that's true, but it happened often enough and don't forget, even the first farmers were foragers before, like the Natufians.

    Besides, hunter gatherers lived in small groups and their density had never been high.
    Those foragers were eliminated for the most part, with only single individuals surviving here and there. But the situation was different in the places mentioned, among e.g. Mesolithic communities in Scandinavia and Southern Russia. There people transitioned to a more sedentary, higher culture without turning into full farmers, but became pastoralists only later.

    It is a very different way of life from farmers. Now you describe a situation "HG taking farmer wives" it is not working, as HG might have lived in matriarchal communities (at least in the Baltics they likely did)
    The Baltic foragers were among the losers, can't say much about them, but matriarchy is a myth, the true Bachofen matriarchy never existed and the hunter-fishers in Southern Russia seem to have been patriarchal, so were other groups. The pattern of patriarchal clans eliminating each other, but accepting some foreign wives of the defeated party is old, its older than farming.

    So do you think hunter gatherers who lived freely wanted to become farmers?


    Usually not, but under specific circumstances yes, especially if becoming integrated into larger Neolithic frameworks with new symbols, ideologies and opportunities.

    I cannot see how to turn a hunter gatherer into farmer. Neither a man or a woman.


    Early farming was often enough largely a female business. Hoe-farming in particular is a typical female occupation. So what I would imagine happened somewhere in Northern Italy-Southern France, if following the study, is that the local hunter gatherers took, one way or another, farmer wives from the Cardial Neolithic people. Those women, this is something you see quite often, kept a lot of their ways from home and were actually quite useful for the clan, as they added resources and knowledge. So it might have happened not in one, but in a couple of generations, with the mixed offspring becoming more and more like the Cardial people, but not fully so and, probably because of a different language, ethnicity and ideology, they didn't intermix afterwards with other Cardial, after the initial mixture, at least there were not foreign males accepted. In the earliest farming communities, you often see males as hunters and pastoralists, while the females did gathering and hoe-farming. Basically the females could feed themselves for the most part, which made them much more valuable than forager wives which could contribute less and needed more investment. That's not to say it was like that everywhere, again those foragers living from aquatic foods were different, but its true for many typical hunters with gathering being of lower importance.
    A lot of hoe-farming societies are polygynic for that reason too, because women produce more than they consume. Primary hunters with a low importance of farming, high investment of males into their wives, are less likely to be polygynic in comparison. I think farmer wives were, not just because they were prettier, quite in demand once foragers saw how it worked out. Most of the pottery was a female business too. So basically you have to look at the male side of things for differences in such a mixed community, and there you can see it in Southern France: They were Cardial Neolithics, but deviated in a typical way. Because the female contribution was Cardial, the male was not.

  15. #65
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    I can see you yourself know more than all the rest of the scientists and researches combined, so no references for your theories are needed.

  16. #66
    Elite member Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Dagne's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-04-11
    Location
    Vilnius
    Posts
    584
    Points
    14,317
    Level
    36
    Points: 14,317, Level: 36
    Level completed: 34%, Points required for next Level: 533
    Overall activity: 26.0%


    Ethnic group
    Lithuanian
    Country: Lithuania



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    The Baltic foragers were among the losers,
    Baltic foragers were among the winners as they passed most of their genes to the current living population (Lithuanians are more than by 50% HG genetically, from different sources and much less so farmers)

  17. #67
    Regular Member Achievements:
    31 days registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    142
    Points
    850
    Level
    7
    Points: 850, Level: 7
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 100
    Overall activity: 25.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Dagne View Post
    I can see you yourself know more than all the rest of the scientists and researches combined, so no references for your theories are needed.
    Not at all. I just saw the I2a/WHG/cultural shift in the Middle Neolithic and predicted a compact source being responsible for most of it, rather than trickling of HG ancestry here and there. I would, however, never have guessed that this phenomenon started in Northern Italy-Southern France, within the ICC sphere. That's something only the real scientists could prove with new data in combination with archaeological models.
    Now its all about how these Southern French clans expanded on, to the North and West, and this, in all likelihood, happened not in a way of peaceful cooperation, regardless of how the original core group in Southern France came up.

    I had France on the radar as a potentinal source, but didn't thought it happened that early, that far South. Only hard data could prove it and convince me. About the mechanisms of its spread we can debate, that's still speculative, agreed, but that it happened is now an established fact. The 2nd study on French and German samples, providing Michelsberger being an I2a-E1b alliance, is another branch newly detected in the Middle Neolithic "reemergence" of WHG. Its always about newly successful clans doing most of the spreading work. Its not individual exchange.

    How much of the HG ancestry in the Baltic can be attributed to local survival is up to debate, but they count at least as survivors, so losers might have been too harsh indeed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •