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

[Arame]

The lack of J2 in aDNA is interesting.
J2 could be related to West Asian component.
The recent calculations of TMRCA of J2 in West Asia shows that his age is 10.000 so his lack in Old Europe is quite intriguing.
Maybe we must wait some Italian and Greek aDNA.
So to what historic event can be related the West Asian component?

 

[bicicleur 2]

By contrast, societies of Neolithic farmers were less patriarchal (some of them were even matriarchal) and also more egalitarian:

Nope. Those societies weren't patriarchal. They were often matriarchal, so groups of women were in position of power over others. Those Neolithic societies also tended to be quite egalitarian, which was reflected for example by their collective burials in mass graves. Neolithic cultures didn't have such a social ladder like that of PIEs, who buried their prominent individuals with rich grave goods, in large kurgans.

if these societies were so egalitarian, why was over 90% of all gold found in just 3-4 graves of the Varna cemetery ?

 

[bicicleur 2]

Yes, I know HGs would trade. The Amerindians would trade furs and sometimes food with the settlers for cloth and beads and metal tools and weapons. They still eventually got shunted on to marginal land, on the so called "reservations", or they lived as hangers on around European settlements. As to bride exchange, European settlers were certainly not eager to send their daughters to live in Indian camps, and even taking Indian women was only acceptable in the initial settlement periods when the settlers were often mostly men. Once the numbers started to really grow and women arrived, a type of apartheid started to be imposed. You see the same situation in places like South Africa as well as Latin America. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they were mostly men. They took native women. Some of those children admixed with each other, forming the Coloured community. Some of them admixed into the thousands of Dutch settlers who started arriving. That's why you have "white" Afrikaners who find to their surprise that they carry an "African" mtDna or more rarely yDna, or a few percent of SSA autosomally. Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

None of us can know exactly what happened in pre-historic Europe, but we have the evidence of these kinds of interactions throughout history, and now we have ancient Dna, and they agree. Was there some incorporation of hunter gatherer dna? Yes, there was. I think it probably took place upon the initial encounter, but there's nothing to indicate that it was extensive and ongoing. Regardless, if there were a lot of hunter-gatherers around who adopted farming on their own there should be some sign of it in the form of communities of Loschbour like people who took up farming, and we haven't found it yet.[/QUOTE]

another example comes to my mind : the Bantoe expansion (E1b1a) in Africa, starting from Cameroon some 3000 years ago into subsaharan Africa
they organised a system of apartheid where they ruled over the aboriginees (haplo A & B)
the system is still intact
I saw a program on TV, it was deep in the Congo jungle, a place only possible to reach by riverboat
the Bantoes live in a village near the river and they rule over the 'autochtones' who roam the jungle and come to the village from time to time
the 'autochtones' are not entitled to any education whatsoever, the Bantoes have the monopoly over trade and the 'autochtones' get instructions all the time from the Bantoes what they should do, even when they are roaming the jungle

colonisation is not just something of the last few centuries

 

[Tomenable]

Bicicleur,

Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison - check "Appendix B" in the link):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

 

[Tomenable]

But Near Eastern admixture in Yamnaya samples was only about 20-25%. And also we don't really know the chronological order.

They could at first learn herding-farming from herders-farmers, and only then mix with them liberally, getting to those 20%.

Haak et al modeling shows the Yamnaya can be modeled as 50% ancient Karelian like/50% Armenian like. Or, use Iraqi Jews for the Near Eastern component. I think that was even better. Still, 25% might be enough anyway.

I wrote that basing on this data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...IoBdY2mG5YvzXzaG3c0/edit?pli=1#gid=1961124674

 

[Angela]

Bicicleur,

Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison - check "Appendix B" in the link):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

Racial structure of Mexico in year 1825, by the end of Spanish rule (according to Angus Maddison):

http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm

The total population was close to 7 million (about 6,9 million) - including:

- 70,000 peninsular Spaniards (fresh immigrants from Iberia)
- 1,200,000 whites of Spanish extraction (but born in America)
- 1,900,000 mestizos (descended from Spanish-Native Mexican unions)
- 3,700,000 unmixed native Mexican Amerindians
- 10,000 unmixed Sub-Saharan Africans

In total 18% unmixed Whites, 28% Mestizos (mixed-race, mostly Native-White ancestry), 54% unmixed Natives, and some Sub-Saharans.

Nowadays in Mexico the shares of Natives and Whites are both lower than in 1825, while the percent of mixed-race people is much higher.

So contrary to what you claim, Europeans have been interbreeding liberally with Native Mexicans. Another thing is that these people are so indoctrinated by Europeans and so rooted out of their native culture, that many of them think that they are of purely Spanish European ancestry, and they will identify in censuses as "Whites" or as "Blacks", but almost never as "Native Americans" (even though they have a lot of Native ancestry):

These Mestizos are precisely what Americans are counting as "Hispanic Whites" and "Hispanic Blacks" in their censuses:

Mexican immigrants in the U.S. should start identifying as "Native Americans" in terms of race.

Especially since U.S. censuses have no "Mestizo" option to choose from, and Hispanic is a culture, not a race.

=================================

Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

Check the racial structure of modern South Africa. Most numerous are Blacks, then Coloureds, and Whites come only third. That Coloureds are the 2nd most numerous group shows that Whites did not restrain from interbreeding with native populations. There is no region in South Africa where Whites are the majority, but there are some regions where Coloureds + Whites outnumber Blacks. This map shows percent of Blacks by region in period 1996-2011 (lowest / highest % at any given time in that period). The Non-Blacks are mostly Coloureds and Whites, the majority in WC and NC:

Tomenable, the Mexican "Indians" weren't hunter-gatherers. Neither were the Maya or the Inca of Peru. When the Spanish arrived in Latin America they didn't just find primitive hunter gatherers. They also found some empires, based on maize, with cities, a stratified social structure, taxes, a sophisticated system of gods and goddesses, gold, even a calendar. The areas were densely populated. The Aztec alone were said to dominate 15 million people. The small numbers of Spaniards who arrived couldn't totally dominate numerically, although they still dominated socially and culturally. The example is closer to what happened in Europe with the Indo-Europeans, although in that case they were already mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec
"The culture of central Mexico includes maize cultivation, the social division between noble pipiltin and macehualli commoners, a pantheon (featuring Tezcatlipoca, Tlaloc and Quetzalcoatl), and the calendric system of a xiuhpohualli of 365 days intercalated with a tonalpohualli of 260 days. Particular to the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan was the Mexica patron God Huitzilopochtli, twin pyramids, and the ceramic ware known as Aztec I to III.^[8]"

The Aztecs built this culture after taking over and admixing with the Toltecs, whom they considered the "source" of all civilization. Actually, agriculture dates to about 3000 BC in certain parts of the Americas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.1360030507/abstract

In Latin America, the "whitest" countries are those which were sparsely populated by "natives" who still practiced hunting and gathering, like Argentina and parts of Brazil, and Chile to some extent. Peru, and countries in the areas which had native cultures which grew corn and potatoes could not be overwhelmed numerically. .

You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

 

[Angela]

I wrote that basing on this data:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...IoBdY2mG5YvzXzaG3c0/edit?pli=1#gid=1961124674

I realize people on the net are playing with the data and slicing and dicing it in different ways. They've done it before, only to be found wrong when we get the next set of ancient samples and analysis from the academics.

I have a feeling that "Near East" in their scheme may be their designation for what Lazaridis called "Basal Eurasian". "Southern Eurasia" is probably their term for the ASI like component associated with "Gedrosia", and "Prehistoric Northern Eurasia" probably stands for ANE, which they are determined to prove came from the North and had no association with Central Asia. They may or may not be right about these percents. As they've been wrong innumerable times before, I'll wait for the academics to get hold of a "Basal Eurasian" genome, and an early Neolithic genome from the Near East, and an ancient genome from Central Asia or the south Caucasus. All these analyses are doing, in my opinion, is confusing people. Or, perhaps it's just part of the continuing saga of trying to lower the "Near Eastern" portion in the Yamnaya as much as possible.

The fact is that the modern Armenians and Iraqi Jews whose genomes best fit or match the 50% non ancient Karelian portion of the Yamnaya are Near Easterners, Near Easterners who have "Basal", ANE and some ASI like component as well.

See: Haak et al 2015
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/02/10/013433.full.pdf

"The Yamnaya differ from the EHG by sharing fewer alleles with MA1 (|Z|=6.7) suggesting a dilution of ANE ancestry between 5,000-3,000 BCE on the European steppe. This was likely due to admixture of EHG with a population related to present-day Near Easterners, as the most negative f3 statistic in the Yamnaya giving unambiguous evidence of admixture is observed when we model them as a mixture of EHG and present-day Near Eastern populations like Armenians.(Z=-6.3; S17)."

Ed. Also from Haak et al, "We estimate that these two elements each contributed about half the ancestry each of the Yamnaya (S16, S19)..."

 

[Angela]

if these societies were so egalitarian, why was over 90% of all gold found in just 3-4 graves of the Varna cemetery ?

I agree with you. Gimbutas overestimated the "egalitarianism" that existed in the Balkan farming cultures, in my opinion, and people quoting her research exaggerated it even more. I've personally always felt that as soon as people were able to accumulate a lot of wealth, you started to get some social stratification, and that began with the Neolithic. However, I do think that it accelerated with the metal ages, and that would include the gold and copper working period in the Balkans before the steppe people ever arrived.

However, I don't think we'd be far off in thinking that these steppe cultures were more egalitarian, and perhaps gave women a different role in society than the later cultures that came to dominate in the area.

 

[Tomenable]

You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.

The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.

The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

 

[Angela]

Angela: not always, but in this case the genetics proves that the ancient pattern was the same as the modern one.

For the past hundred years many archaeologists held that agriculture spread in Europe because hunter gatherers adopted farming mainly through cultural diffusion, like adopting the use of gunpowder, as you say, and there was basically population continuity, but ancient dna proves that this wasn't the case. Farming was not spread by cultural diffusion. It was spread by people.

As I said above, the people in the European Neolithic communities were totally different autosomally from the hunter-gatherers who had previously lived in those areas. Even the Neolithic men and women who carried hunter gatherer uniparental markers were autosomally Near Eastern farmers. A few hunter-gatherers were absorbed, and the rest died or fled to marginal land or lived in isolated communities. They didn't adopt farming. If they had we would be finding farming communities of autosomally Loschbour like people.

The ancient pattern is the same as the modern pattern.

Angela: Yes, I know HGs would trade. The Amerindians would trade furs and sometimes food with the settlers for cloth and beads and metal tools and weapons. They still eventually got shunted on to marginal land, on the so called "reservations", or they lived as hangers on around European settlements. As to bride exchange, European settlers were certainly not eager to send their daughters to live in Indian camps, and even taking Indian women was only acceptable in the initial settlement periods when the settlers were often mostly men. Once the numbers started to really grow and women arrived, a type of apartheid started to be imposed. You see the same situation in places like South Africa as well as Latin America. When the Dutch arrived at the Cape they were mostly men. They took native women. Some of those children admixed with each other, forming the Coloured community. Some of them admixed into the thousands of Dutch settlers who started arriving. That's why you have "white" Afrikaners who find to their surprise that they carry an "African" mtDna or more rarely yDna, or a few percent of SSA autosomally. Admixture between the Dutch settlers and the "natives" became more and more rare.

None of us can know exactly what happened in pre-historic Europe, but we have the evidence of these kinds of interactions throughout history, and now we have ancient Dna, and they agree. Was there some incorporation of hunter gatherer dna? Yes, there was. I think it probably took place upon the initial encounter, but there's nothing to indicate that it was extensive and ongoing. Regardless, if there were a lot of hunter-gatherers around who adopted farming on their own there should be some sign of it in the form of communities of Loschbour like people who took up farming, and we haven't found it yet.

I want to correct my own post to clarify things a little better. The Stuttgart like early European farmers were estimated by Lazaridis et al to contain about 20% "hunter-gatherer" ancestry. Perhaps it was a minority ancestry acquired somewhere in the Near East, or perhaps it was acquired on the way into Europe. The Balkans are often given as an example where it might have taken place. Some of the yDna I2a may have been absorbed there. From the Early Neolithic into the Middle Neolithic, there was some additional absorption of hunter gatherer genetic material by the farming communities.

Also from Haak et al:

"Early European farmers from the Early and Middle Neolithic were closely related but not identical. This is reflected in the fact that Loschbour shared more alleles with post-4000 BCE European farmers from Germany, Spain, Hungary, Sweden, and Italy than with early farmers of Germany, Spain, and Hungary, documenting an increase of hunter-gatherer ancestry in multiple regions of Europe during the course of the Neolithic".

Some of these isolated communities of hunter gatherers in mountains or swamps or other marginal land were slowly absorbed by the farmers, apparently, and perhaps there was some movement south from areas like the North Sea with climate changes. Still, however, the autosomal needle didn't move very far, and there was never any whole sale adoption of agriculture by large groups of hunter gatherers.

 

[Tomenable]

here was never any whole sale adoption of agriculture by large groups of hunter gatherers.

It seems to me that "large groups of hunter gatherers" simply do not exist. They always live in small groups.

 

[bicicleur 2]

Tomenable, the Mexican "Indians" weren't hunter-gatherers. Neither were the Maya or the Inca of Peru. When the Spanish arrived in Latin America they didn't just find primitive hunter gatherers. They also found some empires, based on maize, with cities, a stratified social structure, taxes, a sophisticated system of gods and goddesses, gold, even a calendar. The areas were densely populated. The Aztec alone were said to dominate 15 million people. The small numbers of Spaniards who arrived couldn't totally dominate numerically, although they still dominated socially and culturally. The example is closer to what happened in Europe with the Indo-Europeans, although in that case they were already mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec
"The culture of central Mexico includes maize cultivation, the social division between noble pipiltin and macehualli commoners, a pantheon (featuring Tezcatlipoca, Tlaloc and Quetzalcoatl), and the calendric system of a xiuhpohualli of 365 days intercalated with a tonalpohualli of 260 days. Particular to the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan was the Mexica patron God Huitzilopochtli, twin pyramids, and the ceramic ware known as Aztec I to III.^[8]"

The Aztecs built this culture after taking over and admixing with the Toltecs, whom they considered the "source" of all civilization. Actually, agriculture dates to about 3000 BC in certain parts of the Americas.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.1360030507/abstract

In Latin America, the "whitest" countries are those which were sparsely populated by "natives" who still practiced hunting and gathering, like Argentina and parts of Brazil, and Chile to some extent. Peru, and countries in the areas which had native cultures which grew corn and potatoes could not be overwhelmed numerically. .

You also can't compare what happened in South Africa with what happened in Europe. The situation was similar to what happened in the Americas. First of all, the number of Dutch settlers who went to South Africa was very small. Secondly, by the time they got there, the natives in that area were very numerous, again because they had already adopted pastoral agriculture. The San had already been mostly displaced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

it seems to me those Khoikoi were the first Bantoes I mentioned above to arrive in South Africa : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantu_expansion

indeed every replacement situation is different depending on societal organisation, economy and available technology of the protagonists and also on the geographical situation
therefore you can't generalise for the whole of American colonisation as you can't generalise for the whole of Europe at the time of the neolithic colonisation
e.g. the LBK only colonised only the fertile löss soils , which kept LBK some 200 km seperated from Ertebölle people
I guess that when LBK colonisation became denser, very little of the original HG survived on the European löss soils, but 200 km further north Ertebölle people thrived another 1000 years till arrival of TRB farmers
then again, the Swifterbant people who probably were genetically close to the Ertebölle people interacted in a more pragmatic way with the neolithic colonisers as compared to the hostile Ertebölle warriors. the Swifterbant people succeeded to remain independant while integrating some agriculture to diversifie their economy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swifterbant_culture

 

[Angela]

The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

Given up on the Mexicans, have we?

As to South Africa, yes there were other Europeans who came. Obviously I was talking only about the original settlers. Still, the total numbers of European settlers doesn't come anywhere near the numbers that went to the US or Australia.

In terms of the Khoi-San, most of the information on this site comports with my understanding of the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan

"The Bantu people, with advanced agriculture and metalworking technology developed in West Africa from at least 2000 BC, outcompeted and intermarried with the Khoisan in the years after contact and became the dominant population of Southeastern Africa before the arrival of the Dutch in 1652.^[5]"

"Against the traditional interpretation that finds a common origin for the Khoi and San, other evidence has suggested that the ancestors of the Khoi peoples (one subset of the Khoisan) are relatively recent pre-Bantu agricultural immigrants to southern Africa, who abandoned agriculture as the climate dried and either joined the San as hunter-gatherers or retained pastoralism to become the Khoikhoi."

There is indeed Bantu admixture in them. It's posited that the yDna "E" they found among them (varying by group) is an indication that pastoralists moved into the area and admixed with the ancestral peoples long before the Europeans arrived in the area.
http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa

 

[bicicleur 2]

It seems to me that "large groups of hunter gatherers" simply do not exist. They always live in small groups.

hunter gatherers in general were mobile small groups, but there are some exceptions

the caves in and near Mount Carmel in the Levant have been populated by humanoids for over 600.000 years because of good hunting grounds and lots of nuts and fruits to be collected
first there was homo Palestinensis who was expelled by Neanderthal some 200.000 years ago, and Neanderthal was expelled by homo sapiens sapiens some 50.000 years ago

also Moravia in Europe was a good place before the ice age, when northern Europe was a cold steppe ; Moravia was a corridor between the northern European plain (northern Germany & Poland) and the Carpathian basin ; every spring and every automn herds of animals would pass through this corridor between their winter and summer grazing fields ; there were permanent HG settlements in Moravia ; it was allready densely inhabited by Neanderthals ; 48000 years ago the Bohunicians came to this place ; it is the oldest European culture that is assigned to homo sapiens sapiens, they settled here before the Balkans were settled

as to the European mesolithic, there were several good fishing and hunting territories :
the best territory was Doggerland, which unfortunaltely for the HG drowned
then there were the Atlantic, North Sea and Baltic coast, with the Sado valley in Portugal, the Swifterbant and Ertebölle people, the southern Swedish lakes (Motola)
and the Danube gorges, where large sturgeon fish came to spawn every spring

 

[Fluffy]

The lack of J2 in aDNA is interesting.
J2 could be related to West Asian component.
The recent calculations of TMRCA of J2 in West Asia shows that his age is 10.000 so his lack in Old Europe is quite intriguing.
Maybe we must wait some Italian and Greek aDNA.
So to what historic event can be related the West Asian component?

I'm sure J2 will show up in the Neolithic era, with more ancient DNA testing IMO.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

where did you get this?
the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language, the where ethnic E1b1a, their origin is Cameroon, 3000 years ago
the San speak Khoisan language, they are ethnic A & B

 

[Tomenable]

it seems to me those Khoikoi were the first Bantoes

(...)

the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language

Nope, the Khoikoi spoke the Khoekhoe language, which did not belong to the Bantu family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoekhoe_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi

Given up on the Mexicans, have we?

Me hunter, giving up ground to farmers!

But - seriously - I know that pre-Columbian Mexico had a civilization, I just didn't get that Bicicleur referred only to foragers.

I don't see a reason why should European interaction with native farmers be dramatically different than that with native hunters, though.

The main difference was that farmers were more numerous - especially such with advanced cultures - as you pointed out.

and Neanderthal was expelled by homo sapiens sapiens some 50.000 years ago

Or outbred and absorbed.

After all on average 1 out of 34 Paleolithic ancestors of modern Eurasians was a Neanderthal.

Scholars from the Max Planck Institute have just discovered a 1/8 Neanderthal 7/8 Human hybrid individual.

 

[LeBrok]

The San had not yet been displaced - when the Dutch founded Cape Town, there were still no Bantu peoples in that area.

Most of South Africa was at that time inhabited by the Khoi-San, some of whom were herders, and others were still hunters.



The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

Do you have evidence that the Khoikhoi were genetically different from the San ??? The Bantu - who came that far south later - were.

The Bantu who form the majority of population in today's South Africa are no more indigenous to that area than the Dutch people.

==============================

BTW - White people in South Africa are not only descended from Dutch settlers, but also several other ethnic groups.

Check this article:

http://www.geographiapolonica.pl/article/item/7562.html

http://rcin.org.pl/Content/29182/WA51_49371_r2012-t85-no3_G-Polonica-Kowalski.pdf

So there were the Dutch, the French (mostly the Huguenots), the Germans, and other groups (even some Poles).

Not to mention the British, who of course came later.

To be clear. We are not only dealing with European or Chinese advanced Farmer Type people, or only pure hunter gatherers like prairie Indians, Eskimo or Australian Aborigines. Obviously there are mixed type populations too. Either mixed by evolution, because of ongoing transition in their diet, from meat to starches, or because of their genetic admixture with farmers who live close by. Even my examples of Amazon Jungle tribe, points to a transition, where women are already farmers but not the men.
To keep picture of this process transparent, let's find an example of pure HGs that we have records of, from beginning of colonialism lets say, and see if they transitioned culturally into being farmers. Assuming they didn't admixed genetically much with farmers. Ideally, we should check their DNA before and after, but this is asking for too much at this time.
Finding graves of WHG or ANE pure guys in context of farming would be a perfect proof for cultural cause of farming.

If it comes to North American Natives or Inuits, they don't find themselves well as farmers, or in city culture, or embracing modern technology. In spite of free education, available government programs, subsidies, quotas for minorities, and all other help. There is only small percentage, and mostly mixed individuals (Native/White) who are doing fine among general population. I really wish it was just a cultural phenomenon. They could have change and fit, as long as they only wanted to. If it is a genetic issue, then we can't help. Unless we stop helping and embrace the cruel natural selection, or wait for designer babies.

 

[Angela]

The Khoikhoi were essentially the same race/ethnicity as the San. They were simply those San groups, who adopted herding.

where did you get this?
the Khoikoi speak Bantoe language, the where ethnic E1b1a, their origin is Cameroon, 3000 years ago
the San speak Khoisan language, they are ethnic A & B

Their language is separate but some of their words and the "click" sounds, were adopted by Bantu speakers.

As per post number 113:
"There is indeed Bantu admixture in them. It's posited that the yDna "E" they found among them (varying by group) is an indication that pastoralists moved into the area and admixed with the ancestral peoples long before the Europeans arrived in the area."
http://www.academia.edu/3426993/Genetic_variation_in_Khoisan-speaking_populations_from_southern_Africa

 

[bicicleur 2]

Nope, the Khoikoi spoke the Khoekhoe language, which did not belong to the Bantu family:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoekhoe_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoikhoi



Me hunter, giving up ground to farmers!

But - seriously - I know that pre-Columbian Mexico had a civilization, I just didn't get that Bicicleur referred only to foragers.

I don't see a reason why should European interaction with native farmers be dramatically different than that with native hunters, though.

The main difference was that farmers were more numerous - especially such with advanced cultures - as you pointed out.



Or outbred and absorbed.

After all on average 1 out of 34 Paleolithic ancestors of modern Eurasians was a Neanderthal.

Scholars from the Max Planck Institute have just discovered a 1/8 Neanderthal 7/8 Human hybrid individual.

ok Khoikoi, that is new to me
what was the situation then when first Europeans arrived?
certainly there were Bantus too, the Zulu tribe spoke Bantu
San, Khoikoi and Bantu, 3 different people or maybe more?
can you tell more?

as for Neanderthal, 50.000 years ago was when they were expelled from the Levant, homo sapiens sapiens hadn't even entered Europe yet
homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthal lived side by side in the Levant (both), in the Zagros Mountains (Neanderthal) next to the Persian Gulf area (homo sapiens sapiens) for 75000 years, 125000 till 50000 years ago
there has been some admixture, but quite limited, considering the very long time span ; they were 2 species competing for the same resources