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

Hmm, do you have an autosomal comparison for Karelia J and Karelia R1a?

Nope, not yet.
 
cool maps as always

but

1. I think it's pretty clear now R1b were originally HG from the steppe (although they may have spread elsewhere as well) in which case they got displaced from the steppe at some later date and their dramatic survival in western Europe resulted from LP.

2. I think the fixation with the fertile crescent because of later history is where things have been going wrong. I don't believe the fertile crescent would have been fertile until after farming was developed and the land drained. Instead I think people should maybe be looking at a fertile Aegean or fertile Black/Caspian Sea coast before the sea level rose.
 
It is a very important problem in historical population genetics, especially when looking at the Y-DNA of patriarchal and elitists societies like Proto-Indo-Europeans. Elite Kurgan burials may not be representative of the common folk from the culture in question. If, as you say, there was one ruling dynasty that expanded its territory over time but always placed royal princes as local rulers (like the Mongols did much later), then obviously we get a very skewed view of the Y-DNA in the overall society. That may simply be the reason why R1b-L51 hasn't shown up in Yamna yet. But it also means that there could have been plenty of Mesolithic (R1a, I2a) and Neolithic (G2a, T1a) lineages that were part of Yamna, but that are invisible to us now. The same would also apply to Corded Ware, Sintashta and any other Bronze Age Indo-European culture. If the ruling dynasty lasts long enough in one region, over time it will become the dominant male lineage in that region, even if it starts with in single individual. I think that would explain why R1b got replaced by R1a in Central Asia, and how the overwhelming majority of Indo-European Y-DNA that made it to the Indian subcontinent were R1a and not R1b, even though the European component of Indian genomes is about half Yamna R1b and half EHG R1a.




I2a2a1b1b2 (S12195) is also known as Cont3b. It has a very wide distribution all over Europe, and even places like Georgia, but is especially common in Central Europe.

Place yDNA J, J1 and J2a among these and I completely agree with you.

What seems to be a possibility here, as Fire Heared once said, we are dealing here with one patriachal branch which turned out as R1b-l23 it mere coincidence that ths one "Elite" paternal lineages was not some of the other R1b branches, some sort of J or R1a, G2a, T for that matter.

Since we have yDNA J in EHG and CHG, both said to be the main groups to merge to form Yamna, it is unlikely that one of the two groups stole wives from the other or some other very unlikely scenario.

All it appears to me like, After some time when these CHG and EHG groups merged and became Yamna. One dominant paternal lineage took the power and became Elite, much like a Royal family. And after a long time they were overthrown by a new "Royal family" who were in this case R1a-z93 and more present in the rich Kurgan burials from now on in the Steppes.

We only have 2 CHG samples so far and I don't even think the CHG is the non EHG ancestry of Yamna. But something very closely related/similar to CHG. Much like how WHG is to EHG. A Herder group brought R1b-l23 to the Steppes and they most likely came from Western Asia.

The only difference here is I place them somewhere in the region between the Zagros and Alborz mountains.
 
But the Samara EHG had blonde hair, according to FireHaired14:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1993675580

At least according to previous info, because now it turns out that he also had a red hair mutation:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31766-Update-Natural-Selection-in-the-Last-8-000-Years

Maybe he had what is called reddish-blonde / strawberry-blonde?

Karelian EHG had darker hair, maybe due to that Mongoloid admixture?

Hair colors of EHG samples according to FireHaired14 (Brown/Black = Karelia; Brown/Blonde = Samara):

HG_Hair_Colours.png


On the other hand, autosomal results are similar, Karelian "East Asian" portion is only slightly larger:

They can be modeled as WHG + ANE mix, with very minor South Asian + East Asian admixtures:

EHG_Autosomal.png


Maybe blonde hair is indeed an originally Uralid trait then ???
Calling those R1 tribes "mongoloid" or "Uralid" is simply so wrong. Uralic people are dominant in N Haplogroup. All Uralic people have a significant real Han like/modern Sibirian admixture. R1 tribes not(exceptions are there always).

People who still don't understand that reconstructions made in the past without DNA, especially by Gerasimov are not realiable when it comes to facial features, only the skull shape is mostly accurate. I have seen all his reconstructions. Virtually all of them have an asiatic touch. Even the H&G reconstruction of him, which are from Central Europe.


People need to also understand that Brachycephalic =/= "Mongoloid". Just as there are mesocephalic and even Dolichocephalic East Asians there are also Brachycephalic Caucasians.
 
Last edited:
Alan, flat(tened) face bones are flat(tened) face bones.

If you have two populations always participating in genesys around Baltics (Zvejnieki, Oleniy Ostrov), one older with Caucasian crania with analogous South/South-West and other group from East with flat face and analogous from Syberia, then what are your versions?
 
That R1a EHG had mtDNA haplogroup C1g - suggesting that his mother could be the "Mongoloid" part to that mix:

MtDNA C was also present in Neolithic Ukraine and in the Catacomb culture. It is still found in Eastern Europe today. That doesn't mean any of these people had a Mongoloid mother. I explained in the R1a page's mtDNA correspondence that mtDNA probably originated with Y-DNA R* as Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mammoth hunters during the late Paleolithic. The subclades of C found in Europe are C1, C4a and C5, and all of them are found in the Altai region, southern Siberia and above all western Siberia. That's pretty much were R1* and R1a* originated. In other words, just like U2e and U4, haplogroups C1, C4a and C5 would have come with R1a to Eastern Europe and could have been present there thousands of years before the Mesolithic sample you mention.
 
MtDNA C was also present in Neolithic Ukraine and in the Catacomb culture. It is still found in Eastern Europe today. That doesn't mean any of these people had a Mongoloid mother. I explained in the R1a page's mtDNA correspondence that mtDNA probably originated with Y-DNA R* as Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) mammoth hunters during the late Paleolithic. The subclades of C found in Europe are C1, C4a and C5, and all of them are found in the Altai region, southern Siberia and above all western Siberia. That's pretty much were R1* and R1a* originated. In other words, just like U2e and U4, haplogroups C1, C4a and C5 would have come with R1a to Eastern Europe and could have been present there thousands of years before the Mesolithic sample you mention.

CZ was Siberian.
I don't know when they split.
IMO C arrived with pottery which started to spread all over Siberia from Manchuria 13 ka.
So during LGM C would have been together with N
 
acoording to Genetiker Kostenki was C1b1 - related to the former 'C5'

Barcin neolithic arrived with cattle and ovicaprids 8.6 ka. They came across Anatola overland - at around the same time cattle arrived at Catal Hoyuk and other sites in Central Anatolia (before that they only had ovicaprids)
Before Barcin arrived neolithic there were allready HG on the Marmara coast.
7.8 ka cardial ware arrived at the Marmara coast with pigs.

The NW Anatolian samples were after 8.6 ka but before 7.8 ka and taken from only 2 sites.
IMO the local HG were I and the others - G2a - J2a - H2 - C1a2 were farmers who came from further east.

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

Only Cardial farmers brought one additional element to the package: pigs.

I don't think, however, that tribes from different ethnic groups (e.g. Basal Eurasian G2a vs Caucasian J1) really merged in any significant way. There may have been a few intermarriages. But considering that all European farmers were predominantly G2a, be them descendants of the Thessalian Neolithic or of the Cardium Pottery culture, I imagine that what could have happened is that G2a farmers developed pottery and started trading grain and legumes in ceramic pots for domesticate animals, be it goat, sheep, cattle or pigs. So they ended up with the full Neolithic package which greatly facilitated their adaptation to different environments, made them more resilient in case of bad harvest, and allowed them to migrate with food stored in pots and animals to provide milk and meat until the new land has been cleared for farming and the new crop harvested.

As for C1a2, the TMRCA between La Brana and the neolithic C1a2 according to YFull is 43200 years, that is at the onset of the Aurignacian.
IMO this was a split between European C1a2 (La Brana) and SW Asian C1a2 (neolithic)

Are you sure it is the TMRCA between La Brana and the Neolithic samples, or is it the overall TMRCA for all known C1a2, including modern samples ?
 
Are you sure it is the TMRCA between La Brana and the Neolithic samples, or is it the overall TMRCA for all known C1a2, including modern samples ?

I'm not sure, it would be interesting to test the neolithic C1a2 for further subclades. (C-V86 or V182)

YFull is clear : La Brana split 43.2 ka from C-V86

http://www.yfull.com/tree/C-V20/

Ray Banks estimates the C1a split even older and all European samples are V182 with TRMCA 17.4 ka
he also has an Algerian Berber branch, not V182

C1a2V20 (6845955 G->A) 55.0 KY
• • • •C1a2a V182 (14249991 C->T)
• • • • •C1a2a1V222 (7589937 G->C) 17.4 KY
• • • • C1a2a1aZ31793(7245632 C->T) Brits 6.5 KY
• • • • C1a2a1bZ31808(14811561 G->A) 6.5 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1b1 Z31798(6655569 T->C) Brits 6.0 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1b2 Z31815(8491711 C->T) Hungarians 6.0 KY
• • • • C1a2a1c Y12157/Z30466(14415244 C->A) 6.5 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1c1Z30362(2753960 T->C) Ukrainians 6.0 KY
• • • • • •C1a2a1c2Z31803(6717952 C->T) Greeks 6.0 KY
• • • • •C1a2a2Z29329 (2777695 G->C) 17.4 KY
• • • • C1a2a2aZ31819(7617913 A->T) Spaniards 2.4 KY
• • • • C1a2a2bZ31824(6655370 A->T) Poles 2.4 KY
• • • •C1a2b Z38886 (2800547 G->A) Algerian Berbers


proto-Aurignacian was in Italy and Catalunia 45 ka
Aurignacian started along Austrian Danube 43.5 ka and conquered all European tundra-steppe 40 ka
Levantine Aurignacian and Baradostian (Zagros Mts) are later aurignacian-like cultures (<40 ka), IMO result of backmigration to SW Asia, even possibly the same for Dabbian (Cyrenaica 40 ka)
 
Its been speculated in previous forums that E-m78 and J2b entered the Balkans at the same time. There is the same proportion of E-M78 and J2b throughout the continent. Which, according to the new map, would mean these mixed population was formed in Anatolia and then moved to the Balkans.
No most likely E-M78 was already present in Italy and Spain before neolitich revolution, going by diversity. No E-M78 has been found so far in Neolitich Balkans/Anatolia.
 
That is very interesting. It looks like there was a convergence of different tribes and/or technologies/domesticates around 7000-6500 BCE that kickstarted the Neolithic expansion to Europe. Suddenly, instead of having cereal farmers, ovicaprid herders and cattle herders separately, these Neolithic people had all three + pottery.
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31446-G2a-didn-t-have-domesticated-animals?p=463311#post463311
 
Its highly doubtful that T1a where goat herders along with J1 because because there is zero evidence of any T1a in the arabian peninsula or eastern Africa of any T1a older than 2000years.
T-L446 appears to show greater variation in Europe than it does in the middle east. The T-Y7381 branch found in Saudi Arabia (and heavily tested) is relatively young (1400 ybp) so could be the result of a recent migration from further north.
The paper the Levant versus the Horn of Africa also states this.If T1a and J1 where together as goat herders , they would also be together in the Arabian peninsula , which they are not. 44% J1 and 3.5% T1a ..........J1 are the nomadic group. I see T1a as per Haak , that is 95% EEF ( farmers)

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

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

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


I agree, Is very unlikely that T1a traveled together to J1. T1a subclade distributions in Europe doesn't match to J1 distribution.
 
I read recently that first wave of farmers came to Europe without domesticated animals. Domesticates came to Europe few hundred years later. However, farmer expansion to Europe coincides with just invented pottery.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31446-G2a-didn-t-have-domesticated-animals?p=463311#post463311

The most recent papers claim the opposite.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/An...y_Neolithic_of_the_Balkans_and_Central_Europe

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

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

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g...als in the early Neolithic of Europe&f=false

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

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.
 
The paper I was citing is from 2013.

"Previous work (Connolly et al 2011) has shown the varying regional trajectories by which animal bone assemblages in southwest Asis came to be dominated by domestic animals in the Aceramic Neolithic. This research also showed that the earliest Neolithic sites in Greece and Bulgaria are different from other regions in that they are dominated from the outset by high proportions of domestic animals."
Yes, the domesticates showed in Neolithic in Europe. The paper from my post says that the first wave of Neolithic farmers came without them, 6,200 to 6,000 BC.



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

See the following for the same proposition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=g...als in the early Neolithic of Europe&f=false

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

By the time the first farmers were leaving for Cyprus, coastal Anatolia, and then into the Greek islands and beyond, the package was complete except for pottery.
Some site dating could be off? I'll be glad to get to the bottom of this conundrum. Intriguing anyway. :)
 
"Strontium isotopes document greater human mobility at the start of the Balkan Neolithic by Dusan Boric and Douglas Price."

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

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

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

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


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


Lepenski Vir is in the Danube Gorge.
These were not farmers, they were HG living in the Danube Gorge with plenty of large fish.
They were trading with the Köros farmers since 8.2 ka, but they were not farmers till 7.9 ka
It was a farmer society heavily hybridized with locals.
 
LeBrok: The paper I was citing is from 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPS. I found this, might shine some light on our discussion. I didn't read this yet.
https://www.academia.edu/4124374/An...y_Neolithic_of_the_Balkans_and_Central_Europe
 
I agree Angela, they more or less describe only the hybrid society in Danube Gorges, not the settlements in Greece or other South Balkans. Afterwords, I was reading through material about Sesklo, supposedly the first Neolithic settlement in Greece. They do refer to it as having domesticated animal, even in early stages, aspecially having goats and sheep. Though I couldn't find anything about dating the bones of these animals, to be 100 percent sure that first wave of farmers indeed showed up with them.
There was also some mention that cows and pigs were domesticated somewhat later than sheep and goats, around 6,000 BC in Near East. So possibly these showed up a bit later in Europe.
I tried google search for "first domesticated animal bones found in Europe" and alike, but with no valid leads. After this I got discouraged and went to bed, lol.
Later

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

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

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

This thread has been viewed 47566 times.

Back
Top