does R1b-V88 originate from the Iron Gate ?

Or R1b-V88 was in Anatolia and in different periods moved into Europe.

yes, maybe, but the Iron Gate population was not substantially admixed with EEF or CHG

R1b-V88 may have originated elsewhere alltogether, but no other DNA has been sampled uptill now that is likely to be ancestral to R1b-V88

I just started this thread to discuss the possibility that R1b-V88 may have originated in another place than was anticipated by almost everyone uptill now, when this Iron Gate DNA has been published
 
The farmers envied hunter-gatherers? Where do we ever see that in those areas of the world where people from those two subsistence groups live in close contact?

Now we have crystal balls to look into the hearts and minds of ancient peoples? If we're going to impose our own feelings on ancient people I'm with LeBrok. I've been camping. It's fun for a week or so and then that's enough. Not even all men want to live in the wild. I could never get my husband to go on a single camping trip. Heck, he wouldn't even go on a beach vacation if the hotel or "bagno" didn't have a bar or at least bar service on the beach. He used to say it was uncivilized. :)

Maybe it is women, though, who pushed so hard for farming. :) I've read quite a bit about hunter-gatherers. The men do indeed seem to be lazy buggers. They do the hunting and fishing yes, not very dangerous when you're hunting deer and fishing with nets, they also throw those spears around at men from other groups if they try to poach either the women or the wildlife, and the rest of the time they seem to lie around telling stories. The women are always working because that work is endless: in addition to childbirth and rearing, and cleaning up, and cooking, they do the gathering, the making of the clothes, and probably the drying of the fish and the maintaining of the shelters, and later on the making of ceramics. Not, of course, that farmer women didn't also work very hard, but at least the men had to work too.

Then there's the fact that hunter-gathering as a lifestyle leads no where in terms of cultural evolution.

The Iron Gate people disappeared. They were either absorbed or they left.

I know about loess soils, Bicicleur, but you're conflating the very early periods with the continued expansion over 2,000 years. The conflict also is probably tied to climate change. If the farmers were hurting so would any hg people left who wanted to trade with them. In Iberia, they had probably hidden out in the mountains, as invaded peoples always do.
 
I didn't say HG were better of than farmers, I said it only for the Iron Gate.
They didn't live in tents and had plenty of food.
And I'm not sure their lifestyle didn't lead to nowhere in terms of cultural evolution.
It looks like there was.
But indeed finaly they got absorbed.
It looks like the place got overcrowded.

The LBK farmers were confined to Löss soils, not later farmers.
But that may be the reason the HG were not overwhelmed.
It gave some of them the time to adapt somehow, but without having to copy the lifestyle of the LBK farmers.
I'm sure those HG who didn't adapt in some way or another didn't survive in the end, but that goes for the LBK farmers too.
Both had to find improved ways to survive in the long run.
But the sucessful HG did it from another stance than the succesful farmers.
And we see the weight of HG increase all the time.

As for Iberia, I don't think all HG were hidden in the mountains.
As I mentioned in another thread, the megaliths in Evora allready existed before Carded Ware and it looks like the megalithic farmers in Iberia were very rich in WHG DNA (both Y and mt).

Maybe you're right about the women.
Being HG looks more fun than being farmer for a man, but not for a woman. ;)
 
There was a study on the bones of the Iron Gates older hunters and newer farmers. The hunter-gatherers were much better fed than farmers. From the teeth analysis was discovered that the period of breastfeeding was longer so the general health was better. They had good teeth, unlike farmers who had a lot of dental caries.
Is a very rich area not only in fish, but also in many other resources. They lived in pretty sophisticated communities, they also had a form of religion, a lot of free time, a pretty good life.
 
There was a study on the bones of the Iron Gates older hunters and newer farmers. The hunter-gatherers were much better fed than farmers. From the teeth analysis was discovered that the period of breastfeeding was longer so the general health was better. They had good teeth, unlike farmers who had a lot of dental caries.
Is a very rich area not only in fish, but also in many other resources. They lived in pretty sophisticated communities, they also had a form of religion, a lot of free time, a pretty good life.
So, any idea why h-gs and their culture vanished, and farmers survived, multiplied and farming continued since, till today in this particular area? Shouldn't it been in reverse if hunters where healthier, bigger and stronger and had more food to feed their offspring?
 
I didn't say HG were better of than farmers, I said it only for the Iron Gate.
They didn't live in tents and had plenty of food.
And I'm not sure their lifestyle didn't lead to nowhere in terms of cultural evolution.
It looks like there was.
But indeed finaly they got absorbed.
It looks like the place got overcrowded.
By hungry, smaller, weak, sick, malnourished farmers? Something doesn't make sense.
 
So, any idea why h-gs and their culture vanished, and farmers survived, multiplied and farming continued since, till today in this particular area? Shouldn't it been in reverse if hunters where healthier, bigger and stronger and had more food to feed their offspring?

I had been wondering about this apparent contradiction for a while and it seems my faulty understanding of the agricultural revolution led me to all kinds of wrong conclusions. Evidence is accumulating that Flannerty's broad spectrum revolution hypothesis accurately predicted that an increase of dietary breadth due to the culling of large game populations preceded the neolithic. Levantine hunter-gatherers began to exploit various wild cereal sources as well as unlikely animal sources like rodents, frogs, shellfish that were extremely difficult to hunt. As the population increased, the adoption of agriculture became a matter of life or death.

European Mesolithic societies did not yet face such dire circumstances and likely did not anticipate the future developmental potentional of primitive agriculture. In summary, European hunters were well-fed but stagnant while agriculturists were malnourished and dynamic. Hence West Asia became a population-pump and Europe did not. That's also why it makes little sense to look for an European origin of those Neolithic haplogroups.
 
Last edited:
I had been wondering about this apparent contradiction for a while and it seems my faulty understanding of the agricultural revolution led me to all kinds of wrong conclusions. Evidence is accumulating that Flannerty's broad spectrum revolution hypothesis accurately predicted that an increase of dietary breadth due to the culling of large game populations preceded the neolithic. Levantine hunter-gatherers began to exploit various wild cereal sources as well as unlikely animal sources like rodents, frogs, shellfish that were extremely difficult to hunt. As the population increased, the adoption of agriculture became a matter of life or death.

European Mesolithic societies did not yet face such dire circumstances and likely did not anticipate the future developmental potentional of primitive agriculture. In summary, European hunters were well-fed but stagnant while agriculturists were malnourished and dynamic. Hence West Asia became a population-pump and Europe did not. That's also why it makes little sense to look for an European origin of those Neolithic haplogroups.
We can give words interesting meaning but till we can explain it in numbers we won't get to the bottom of it. I see this issue as a function of offspring survival. Let's say that h-gs and farmers were promiscuous on same level. Meaning that they had sex about same amount of times and same amount of kids were being born. Also, it is safe to assume that no group used any population control methods, like birth control pills. ;) So far, things being equal.
The only difference had to be in survival of kids. Was it safety of the village, better hygiene or food production, higher GDP? One thing is certain. Farming societies had more kids surviving into adulthood, therefore faster population growth.
 
We can give words interesting meaning but till we can explain it in numbers we won't get to the bottom of it. I see this issue as a function of offspring survival. Let's say that h-gs and farmers were promiscuous on same level. Meaning that they had sex about same amount of times and same amount of kids were being born. Also, it is safe to assume that no group used any population control methods, like birth control pills. ;) So far, things being equal.
The only difference had to be in survival of kids. Was it safety of the village, better hygiene or food production, higher GDP? One thing is certain. Farming societies had more kids surviving into adulthood, therefore faster population growth.

Hunter-Gatherer population density cannot be anything but small. The argument about the bad physical shape of early peasants is about the unhealthiness of their diets. They had the benefit of an entirely novel mode of subsistence which supports far more people per km^2 so of course they'd outnumber Mesolithic people.
 
Hunter-Gatherer population density cannot be anything but small. The argument about the bad physical shape of early peasants is about the unhealthiness of their diets. They had the benefit of an entirely novel mode of subsistence which supports far more people per km^2 so of course they'd outnumber Mesolithic people.

indeed, it is not because the farmers could survive in bigger numbers that they had a better life, and certainly not a more interesting one
their life was as monotonous as their diet
 
indeed, it is not because the farmers could survive in bigger numbers that they had a better life, and certainly not a more interesting one
their life was as monotonous as their diet
Again you assume that people don't like monotonous lifestyle. I don't, you don't, and many don't, but I know more people who love their scheduled, same, organized, monotonous jobs, and stable lives, and being happy in their predictable and repetitive world, than not. I know more people being afraid of unknown and adventures, than people who crave these. The unknown and unpredictable scares most people. Especially farmers.
 
Again you assume that people don't like monotonous lifestyle. I don't, you don't, and many don't, but I know more people who love their scheduled, same, organized, monotonous jobs, and stable lives, and being happy in their predictable and repetitive world, than not. I know more people being afraid of unknown and adventures, than people who crave these. The unknown and unpredictable scares most people. Especially farmers.

what's your point?
 
I had been wondering about this apparent contradiction for a while and it seems my faulty understanding of the agricultural revolution led me to all kinds of wrong conclusions. Evidence is accumulating that Flannerty's broad spectrum revolution hypothesis accurately predicted that an increase of dietary breadth due to the culling of large game populations preceded the neolithic. Levantine hunter-gatherers began to exploit various wild cereal sources as well as unlikely animal sources like rodents, frogs, shellfish that were extremely difficult to hunt. As the population increased, the adoption of agriculture became a matter of life or death.

European Mesolithic societies did not yet face such dire circumstances and likely did not anticipate the future developmental potentional of primitive agriculture. In summary, European hunters were well-fed but stagnant while agriculturists were malnourished and dynamic. Hence West Asia became a population-pump and Europe did not. That's also why it makes little sense to look for an European origin of those Neolithic haplogroups.

I agree with much of this, but I also think it very much depends on which farmers you're discussing. It very much depends on the area and the time period. Of course, if the rains fail, if there's a flood, if there's an infestation of locusts, if they've just worn out the soil because they don't yet understand how to replenish it, the farmers are going to suffer from malnutrition. When things are going well, they're not, particularly the groups who also incorporated some fishing and hunting, as some did. The farmers whom the steppe people encountered had just gone through a period of climate change and failing crops. Of course they were malnourished. Does anyone think the people of the advanced Chalcolithic civilizations of the Balkans, creating these large towns, elaborate houses, magnificent pottery and copper ornaments were falling over from malnutrition for most of their history?

Then, just look at this logically. If hunter-gathering was so optimal and they were so well fed, and farming was not and they were not, why did farming cultures produce so many more offspring who survived to reproduce than did the hunter-gatherers? It's obviously because there were fewer resources. Now, whether the children died of starvation, or they were deliberately killed to keep numbers low, I don't know, but as LeBrok mentioned, they did not have birth control.

I also don't get this they weren't adventurous stuff. They spread all over Europe, North Africa, the Near East, India, and down into deepest Africa. That seems pretty adventurous to me. Of course, needs must.

Also, by the time the Neolithic farmers arrived, the Mesolithic people of Europe were sedentary, don't forget. We're not talking about Mammoth hunters. Again, there's all this conflation of time periods. Those Iron Gates people were tied to that fishing area. The hg people of the far northeast were tied to the Baltic shore lines. The hunter gatherers of western North Africa were tied to a particular area because that's where all the hazel nut trees were located.

There is no question the population of Mesolithic people of Europe was small. You just need too much territory to support such a lifestyle for it to be any different.

I've posted this before, but it bears repeating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQtzwoOYrkE
 
by 15 ka when climate became optimal and forests were growing, HG became sedentary all over the world
population had regrown after LGM and every rich hunting and fishing ground became ocupied
the only posibility to expand the population further was diversification
it happened in Europe were they burned forest land to attract deer and to increase the growth of hazel for their nuts and where they produced fish traps on an almost industrial scale
it happened south of the Yangzi river where they started to collect rice
it even happened in Sundaland where for the first time HG started to explore the dense forests to suplement their seafood diet
it happened in the Zagros Mts where sheep, goat and pigs were domesticated
why was it so succesfull in the Levant? nature was very favourable, for sure, maybe they also had the correct social structure
 
You base your hypothesis on assumptions and personal feelings. This will lead you astray.

what personal feelings?
also earlier in this thread you told me my comment was based on personal feelings and I explained what my comment was based on
you think you know me and know how I think, based on sentiment and prejudice
I'm sorry if I judge some situations different than you do, I think it is my right
 
by 15 ka when climate became optimal and forests were growing, HG became sedentary all over the world
population had regrown after LGM and every rich hunting and fishing ground became ocupied
the only posibility to expand the population further was diversification
it happened in Europe were they burned forest land to attract deer and to increase the growth of hazel for their nuts and where they produced fish traps on an almost industrial scale
it happened south of the Yangzi river where they started to collect rice
it even happened in Sundaland where for the first time HG started to explore the dense forests to suplement their seafood diet
it happened in the Zagros Mts where sheep, goat and pigs were domesticated
why was it so succesfull in the Levant? nature was very favourable, for sure, maybe they also had the correct social structure

That's a different issue LeBrok. I do think, as John Hawks points out, that the people in the Levant were blessed with a wealth of different resources. That may be part of the answer. I don't know the whole answer.

I just remembered something I read in a paper about the early Neolithic versus the Mesolithic. I'll be darned if I can find the paper, however. It mentioned that weaning children might have been much easier in a farming setting, as well as in more southerly locations, which are coincidentally where early farming flourished more than in very cold settings. It's easy to make a mash of pounded grains or grains and fruit with some milk to give to children until their teeth are sufficiently grown to eat a lot of meat. If your milk dries up, as it can often do even when you're eating reasonably well, the children might suffer. On the other hand, I guess you could pound up some fish I guess, right? I've wondered too if it might have something to do with the fact that women from more "southern" locales seem to start menstruating and thus being capable of childbirth at a younger age than girls in more "northern" locales. The same is true for males from what I remember reading. It's not all that uncommon for girls with more "southern" ancestry to start menstruating as young as ten years old. I think it used to be much older in more northern areas, before all this ingestion of hormone laden milk and meat, that is.

We just don't know enough.

After the very earliest Neolithic, the farmers did spread out from the loess soils, and some did in fact locate near watercourses, and eat a lot of aquatic creatures.

This paper I did find in my files. I saved it, I think, because the settlements are near the Koros sites from which we got those Neolithic samples along with the one Mesolithic one. (genetically, of course)

See: https://www.academia.edu/6771528/Re..._mitigated_environmental_change_in_prehistory

It's extremely wordy. Just scroll down to the important stuff.
 
my name is bicicleur, Angela, it is not Lebrok

the paper deals with the Starcevo-Köros culture, not LBK, is it?
I recall these people were not looking for löss, they were living near the floodplains and worked the fertile soils in the floodplains.
They also engaged in hunting and in fact were exploiting all possible resources nature offered them, contrary to the LBK folks.
I got this and many more things from 'Europe between the Oceans' by Barry Cunliffe which I found very informative for an amateur like me.
 
my name is bicicleur, Angela, it is not Lebrok

the paper deals with the Starcevo-Köros culture, not LBK, is it?
I recall these people were not looking for löss, they were living near the floodplains and worked the fertile soils in the floodplains.
They also engaged in hunting and in fact were exploiting all possible resources nature offered them, contrary to the LBK folks.
I got this and many more things from 'Europe between the Oceans' by Barry Cunliffe which I found very informative for an amateur like me.

Oh gosh, Bicicleur, I'm so sorry. Of course I know who you are...You're one of my absolute favorite posters. I've told you often enough how much I value your input.

Yes, you're absolutely right about the area. I was particularly interested because it was near Koros, as I said.
 
Khvalynsk 7.2-6 ka R1b1-L278, possibly pré-V88

The Y-SNP calls for the Khvalynsk sample I0122 are here. He was R1b-V88 or pre-R1b-V88. Note that the positive call for the V88-equivalent SNP S5025 is reliable, while the three positive calls for P297-equivalent SNPs are not.

The Y-SNP calls for the Mesolithic sample SC1 from the Iron Gates region are here. He was R1b-V88 or pre-R1b-V88. With a date of 7125–6603 BC, this is now the oldest such sample.

So, is it possible that one man, R1b-V88 or pré-R1b-V88 got from the Iron Gates into Anatolia and there became the founding father of R1b-V88?

There's no need to posit a special migration to Anatolia for the "founding father of R1b-V88". It's sufficient to simply say that the man in whom V88 originated very likely lived in Europe, and that his descendants would later spread to places outside of Europe, including Africa and the Middle East.
 

This thread has been viewed 36609 times.

Back
Top