Mezolithic-Neolithic vs. Chalcolithic-Early Iron Age Y-DNA landscape of Europe

[Tomenable]

Whatever it was it needs to explain why farmer autosomal was very high but their Y G2a very low in mid and late Neolithic

All that we have are ridiculously small sample sizes from ridiculously small number of places.

It is like talking about genetic structure of all Europeans based on 10 inhabitants of 2 villages.

H-Gs transferred their Y DNA into farmers but not the Autosomal.

Everyone inherits about 50% of their autosomal DNA from father, and about 50% from mother.

But if R marries a 100% Neolithic farmer women, their son will still have R but will be 50% Neolithic.

If that son then marries a 100% Neolithic women then their son will also have R, but will be 75% Neolithiic.

If that son then marries a 75% Neolithic women, their son will still have R, but will be 87,5% Neolithic.

So frequencies of haplogroups can change drastically without so much change in autosomal DNA.

 

[Tomenable]

In your model Y haplogroup R progresses at same rate as their autosomal genome overtaking G2a.

Nope.

In my model Y haplogroup R increased from 20% to 75% but autosomal component brought by them increased from 20% only to 42%.

So no, definitely in my model R progressed at a much faster (nearly two times faster) rate than their autosomal genome.

It is possible to make a model in which haplogroups R replaces G2a with even less autosomal impact of immigrants.

But that would require longer time (more generations). In my model the change of G2a into R was extremely rapid, only 3 generations.

 

[Tomenable]

If farming was a cultural phenomenon we would have cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale

There were cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale.

Moreover - there were cases of North American Natives domesticating horses and turning from farming to nomadic lifestyle in few decades.

All that horse-riding nomadic culture known from "Western movies" emerged since around year 1700 onwards.

It is possible that Near Eastern farmers came already with slightly mixed Y hromosomes, but the ones that we found in their communities beside G2a, especially in late Neolithic, are turning to be European HG's haplogroups.

Which ones? There are only few Y-DNA samples from Mesolithic hunters in Western Europe.

Haplogroups T, E, H, F* and such were found among Neolithic farmers - but not in hunter burials.

 

[LeBrok]

There were cases of North American Natives turning to farming on a tribal scale.

Can you find out more details about these tribes?

Moreover - there were cases of North American Natives domesticating horses and turning from farming to nomadic lifestyle in few decades.

All that horse-riding nomadic culture known from "Western movies" emerged since around 1700 onwards.

They were nomads before they domesticated horses. Many if not most HGs fallow their favorite prey in seasonal routs. They didn't need to breed horses, because horses found their natural environment in the prairies. It is like a steppe. So they were still far away from being herders in a true sense. Not mentioning the divide to being true farmer.

 

[Tomenable]

Let's say that Natufians/fertile crescent first farmers were G2a folks.

When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.

They were nomads before they domesticated horses.

Hidatsa and Pawnee tribes were first farmers, then switched to being horse-riding nomads.

 

[Tomenable]

we find I2, F and C, the local hunter gatherer haplogroups among farmers.

F* is not found in Mesolithic - only in Neolithic samples - so on what basis do you claim that F* did not come with farmers, but was local ???

 

[LeBrok]

This claim is totally ridiculous. It is like claiming that you cannot drive a car if you don't have Karl Benz's DNA.

Innovations like farming, radio, factories, cars, etc. are invented by very small groups of people, and spread through cultural transition.

Overwhelming majority of car mechanics and of people with driving licence are NOT descendants of Karl Bez.

Ridiculous is to compare any technology which was invented 100 years ago, and its effect on genome, to farming which had beginnings 20 thousand years ago. Don't you think that 20 thousand years can bring genetic mutations to enhance abilities to farm? Especially if gives way more food than hunting, much bigger population, being a very strong evolutionary forcing. Just look how fast lactose persistence gene spread through Norther Europe. Just because the milk was there and it was very beneficial.
I'm starting to think that you don't "believe" in natural selection.

I'll address your model when back from work.

 

[Tomenable]

I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

There are individual cases of willing laborers. We shouldn't exclude labour by force in form of slavery. We know how common it was in the past.
There was huge effort by white man to culturally change the ways of American Natives, through schools, convents, and forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle. In overwhelming numbers these efforts didn't bring expected results.
We should also noted that central American Natives had no problem with embracing farming, large scale farming. We know, however, that they were farmers before Spaniards showed up.
This points to farming (repetitive hard work, planning and scheduling, sedentary lifestyle, etc) being a set of genetic traits. Slowly build up in populations for thousands of years of experimentation with farming. Without these traits you can't make one to farm. They would rather roam in bands all day and hunt, or lie around and sleep. The proper H-G way of life. Predispositions make us behave naturally in certain ways.

I 3/4 agree with you - turning a HG into a farmer is hard/impossible (unless they're enslaved) but there are a large number of examples of HGs being successfully recruited to work as *herders* on the edges of farming territory.

Australia: http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2011/06/15/1226075/553655-180611-raparapa.jpg

The Spanish recruited Amerindians to work on their ranches both in South America and New Mexico. (This was how the Plains Indians learned about horses.)

I agree that certain genetic traits are necessary for a full farming culture - humans have to be pacified to farm - but herding is like an interim stage between HG and farmer.

(In a way humans were domesticated by wheat, rice and millet.)

My point is the ancient ydna C, I etc men found in a farming context (edit:in neolithic Europe) may have been recruited shepherds like those aboriginal stockmen rather than full farmers.

 

[Greying Wanderer]

I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

I don't think it's about learning to farm I think it's about having the genetic traits necessary to farm: patience, hard work, looking ahead etc, whereas the HG lifestyle (at least for the men) mostly involves doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping.

#

The farming = human domestication argument actually supports your case: farmers are domesticated humans, HGs are wild humans, herders are in between.

So in a single fight HG > farmer (except usually it's not a single fight and the farmers usually have an advantage in numbers and technology).

 

[Angela]

When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.

Where a yDna lineage is common today doesn't tell us where it originated or where it thrived at any particular point in history. Otherwise, everybody in central Europe would be G2a and I2a.

The Fertile Crescent is not just Mesopotamia; it also includes the Levant (which is now Semitic speaking) and parts of Anatolia.

Most researchers seem to believe that the earliest crop farming developed in the foothills of the Zagros mountains, but some also hold that some of the earliest crops might have been domesticated in the Levant, in former Natufian territory. Certainly, the first animal domestication seems to have occurred north and east of Mesopotamia proper.

This University of Chicago map shows one possible sequence of spread.

So, the spread into what I think you mean by Mesopotamia might have been a later development.

We do know from recent papers like Paschou et al that some if not all the movement into Europe was from the coastal region at the intersection of the Levant and southwestern Anatolia, where, as I said, they now speak Semitic languages, and these people, who brought their crops and livestock with them, were predominantly G2a.
Paschou et al:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

If G2a was in the Levant, I don't know why it wouldn't have been in Mesopotamia. It is, in fact, present in both areas, although as everywhere, in small numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201

I don't know where J1 and J2 were at the time, but it would seem there weren't that many in the Levant at the time the farmers left for Europe. It used to be held that they also developed in the Zagros Mountains, so perhaps they were northeast of the early core Neolithic areas, and moved there later on.

 

[Fluffy]

Where a yDna lineage is common today doesn't tell us where it originated or where it thrived at any particular point in history. Otherwise, everybody in central Europe would be G2a and I2a.

The Fertile Crescent is not just Mesopotamia; it also includes the Levant (which is now Semitic speaking) and parts of Anatolia.

Most researchers seem to believe that the earliest crop farming developed in the foothills of the Zagros mountains, but some also hold that some of the earliest crops might have been domesticated in the Levant, in former Natufian territory. Certainly, the first animal domestication seems to have occurred north and east of Mesopotamia proper.

This University of Chicago map shows one possible sequence of spread.

So, the spread into what I think you mean by Mesopotamia might have been a later development.

We do know from recent papers like Paschou et al that some if not all the movement into Europe was from the coastal region at the intersection of the Levant and southwestern Anatolia, where, as I said, they now speak Semitic languages, and these people, who brought their crops and livestock with them, were predominantly G2a.
Paschou et al:
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.abstract

If G2a was in the Levant, I don't know why it wouldn't have been in Mesopotamia. It is, in fact, present in both areas, although as everywhere, in small numbers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_G-M201

I don't know where J1 and J2 were at the time, but it would seem there weren't that many in the Levant at the time the farmers left for Europe. It used to be held that they also developed in the Zagros Mountains, so perhaps they were northeast of the early core Neolithic areas, and moved there later on.

If J wasn't there,E would have been. J1 and E (certain subclades) are the typical Semitic Haplogoups not G. Not in big numbers anyway.

 

[Tomenable]

whereas the HG lifestyle (at least for the men) mostly involves doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping.

The HG lifestyle often involves following animals for days, weeks or months before you catch and kill them.

"Doing fun stuff for a few hours then sleeping" is not always the case. Try to survive as a hunter-gatherer for several months.

I think it's about having the genetic traits necessary to farm: patience, hard work, looking ahead etc.

"Patience, hard work, looking ahead" are not the stereotypical traits typically ascribed to, say, Medieval peasants.

There was huge effort by white man to culturally change the ways of American Natives, through schools, convents, and forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle. In overwhelming numbers these efforts didn't bring expected results.

You place too much stress on genetics and not enough on cultural factors - such as social disruption and moral depression, as described here:

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4381154;view=1up;seq=104

By the way - "forceful indoctrination in Western lifestyle" is the main problem here. People always resist forceful indoctrination of any kind. Living in part of Europe where there was not so long ago forceful indoctrination in Communist lifestyle and ideology, I know that people resisted that indoctrination.

 

[Sile]

When you look at that area, you see that G2a is most common in Caucasus and in Anatolia, not in the Fertile Crescent.

So I don't think that Mesopotamia's Semitic civilizations were G2a folks. Are there any Semitic people today with G2a ???

G2a were Anatolian people who acquired farming techniques from people who lived in the Fertile Crescent.



Hidatsa and Pawnee tribes were first farmers, then switched to being horse-riding nomads.

The levant original markers where in majority E and J1 .............we know that R1-v88 enter the are late with T and L and then proceeded to Egypt.
We have little G2 in the levant

There does seem to be a big mixture of many haplogroups around modern Kurdish lands and modern south Armenian lands ..............maybe this was a staging place for migration

 

[Angela]

If J wasn't there,E would have been. J1 and E (certain subclades) are the typical Semitic Haplogoups not G. Not in big numbers anyway.

If recent research is correct as to the first farmers' departure point for Europe, G2a was in the Levant at that time. Perhaps other yDna lineages were also present, but if they were they don't seem to have chosen to emigrate in the same numbers.

What is present in the Levant today in terms of yDna is not dispositive. I think we've learned that frequencies of yDna lineages can fluctuate greatly over time. If they didn't, Central Europe would, as I said, be all G2a and I2a.

The origin point is different from the area of spread, which can be different from modern areas of highest frequencies.

 

[Angela]

The levant original markers where in majority E and J1 .............we know that R1-v88 enter the are late with T and L and then proceeded to Egypt.
We have little G2 in the levant

There does seem to be a big mixture of many haplogroups around modern Kurdish lands and modern south Armenian lands ..............maybe this was a staging place for migration

See post #55

 

[Angela]

I do not claim that farming did not have any effect on genetic mutations. I claim that one can learn to farm like one can learn to drive a car.

And it is just as ridiculous to claim that we have evolved to drive cars as it is to claim that some people evolved to farm while some didn't.

Of course a mentally retarded person may have a problem driving a car or farming, but an intelligent hunter will not have such problems.

Hunter-gatherers can be forced to farm, as slave labor perhaps, but studies of them throughout the world have shown that as groups they historically prefer to retreat and maintain their lifestyle. The Amazon Indian tribes are a good example.

I think what has happened historically with the San is a good example of the progression. As farming groups invaded their territory, the San retreated, their numbers shrinking along with their foraging territory. On the margins, some admixed individuals formed their own communities and acted as intermediaries with the farmers. Some of those people then admixed into the farmer groups.

I think that's what happened in most of Europe. As I've said before, you just have to look at what happened in Hungary. The first I2a sample is pure hunter-gatherer autosomally. Fast forward, and you have Ne7, who is also I2a, but who is autosomally "Neolithic farmer". How did it happen? One hunter-gatherer male was absorbed by the newcomers. Perhaps he was a slave, but his descendents freed themselves. Regardless, his line thrived with his adoption of agriculture.

What we don't see, however, is Neolithic farming communities full of people who are autosomally "hunter-gatherer" and yDna I2a. In other words, we don't have whole groups of hunter gatherers becoming farmers through cultural transmission. It always seems to have occurred through admixture genetically.

Now, whether that's down to the fact that hunter-gatherers don't have certain traits which natural selection increased in people who had been farmers for millennia, or whether it's a function of the fact that it's difficult for anyone to so drastically change lifestyle I don't know, but that seems to be the pattern.

As I said, though, I think history shows that they can be forced to farm with fair results. That's what Catholic priests did in Missions in Latin America, for example.

If you haven't seen "The Mission", I recommend it.

 

[Tomenable]

but studies of them throughout the world have shown that as groups they historically prefer to retreat and maintain their lifestyle.

Please check some medical studies on health of hunters compared to health of early farmers - both modern and archaeological populations. Generally, hunters tend to be healthier and better nourished than primitive farmers. The advantage of farmers is that they can feed much more people, but each individual farmer has a less diverse diet (and less diverse means they will be undernourished or at least lack some nutrients in their food).

Switching from hunting and gathering to farming has also cons, not just pros. And nomadic lifestyle has its charms.

Farming lifestyle also has its hardships, and for some people it may be less charming to sit in one place all the time instead of roaming around.

This has not much to do with genetics but more with cultural factors.

The only (partially) genetic factor that could made adoption of farming impossible that I can think of, is intelligence. Low intelligence, to be precise. But there are farmer populations with low IQ, and there are hunter populations with high IQ as well (for example the Eskimos).

If you haven't seen "The Mission", I recommend it.

I have seen it, thank you - a really great movie.

 

[arvistro]

Ok, with time they can become farmers. After all those were hunters and gatherers who started farming, right?
Like herding is next step of hunting, farming is next step of gathering.

 

[Tomenable]

What we don't see, however, is Neolithic farming communities full of people who are autosomally "hunter-gatherer" and yDna I2a. In other words, we don't have whole groups of hunter gatherers becoming farmers through cultural transmission. It always seems to have occurred through admixture genetically.

We generally don't have any Neolithic farming communities with mostly I2. Data collected so far shows that they were mostly G2a and I2 were in minority. Unless you mean some sites with very small samples size, like e.g. 2 samples. I don't think we can draw conclusions from 2 samples.

I think what has happened historically with the San is a good example of the progression. As farming groups invaded their territory, the San retreated, their numbers shrinking along with their foraging territory. On the margins, some admixed individuals formed their own communities and acted as intermediaries with the farmers. Some of those people then admixed into the farmer groups.

It had less to do with the San's rejection of new lifestyle, and more to do with aggressive attitude of the invading Bantu farmers.

The Bantu were not open to accept the San into their communities. The Bantu even believed that eating the San makes them stronger...

The San (and also the Pygmies) were considered to be "magical people", whose flesh - when cooked and eaten - heals diseases.

But if farmers are more peaceful, then instead of exterminating hunter populations, they might be willing to teach them how to farm.