Tracing the genetic origin of Europe's first farmers

what strikes me is the Maykop culture area with lowest fst values
i suppose they are not ancestral to STA-LBK culture
does it mean STA-LBK and Maykop have the same genetic origin ?
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia
 
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia

Looks like the LBK people had "Fox Cult"
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/...ournal.pbio.1000535.g001&representation=PNG_L
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000535



Also the Alans of Saltovo-Mayaki culture from Northern Don region had "Fox Cult"(foxes were buried in graves)
Alans of Saltovo-Mayaki culture had Catacomb burial ritual and also they had haplogroup G2 there are some paleo-dna results from Northern Don region
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...om-River-Don-8-th-century-6-had-haplogroup-G2
 
The People of Globular Amphora culture destroyed the Maykop culture
And created new cultures in Caucasus
Novosvobodnaya culture in West Caucasus
And Kuban-Terskaya culture in Central Caucasus


In their way they also destroyed the Trypillian culture, Yamna culture, and pushed out the Kuro-Araxes culture towards northern Anatolia

do you think Globular Amphora are the successors of LBK ?
 
I wish they had tested for the subclade of I2a1. As is, it could be I2a-M26 (consistent with other Neolithic farmer samples) or an I2a-Din relative (which would be very notable!) or it could be something else. Oh well.

I guess if they could, they would.
Some parts of the DNA may be unreadable.

These I2a1 may have been a subclade gone extinct by now.
 
do you think Globular Amphora are the successors of LBK ?
LBK -> Rössen culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture
LBK -> Lengyel culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture
LBK -> Stroke-ornamented ware culture -> Funnelbeaker culture -> Globular Amphora culture
 
Are subclades for the mtDNA haplogroups accessible from the raw data? I'm particularly interested in J and K.
 
Finally an interesting study this summer ! There hadn't been much happening for several months.

These new samples come from the Early Neolithic Starčevo and LBK cultures. The most valuable results here are the ancient Y-DNA. Haak 2010 and Brandt 2013 had already tested three Y-DNA samples from the LBK culture in Germany and yielded haplogroups F* and G2a2b. Identically the same haplogroups were found in these Hungarian samples, with the addition of haplogroups I2a1 and I1. I2a1 was also found among Neolithic farmers in France and probably represents the Mesolithic European population assimilated by Near Eastern farmers in the Balkans before their expansion across Europe. I1 is by far the most interesting for two reasons:

1) It is the oldest attested existence of I1 and it suggests that I1 may have been far more widespread in the Mesolithic than the Baltic region.

2) Since I1 hasn't been found yet among Mesolithic Scandinavians (who so far were found to belong to I*, I2* and I2a1), it could mean that I1 was also among the first lineages of Mesolithic Europeans assimilated by Neolithic farmers, and that I1 actually entered Scandinavia during the Neolithic/Chalcolithic. In other wors, I1 could have been living in the Balkans in the Mesolithic, then spread to Germany with the LBK culture, then to Scandinavia afterwards.


I*'s hasn't been found just hg I which couldn't be tested for many downstream SNPs. I'm not sure if you knew that PWC hunter gatherer Ajv52 had I or I2a2a1.
 
there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though :disappointed:

QJ67y2c.jpg
 
there is a table with the mtDNA results in the pdf of the study, also if you look in the PCA plot you can see that they found mtDNA H5, no H1 or H3 though :disappointed:
From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)
 
Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.

I disagree with the posters on this site who now think that the spread of I1 into Scandinavia and I2 in the Balkans represent an expansion with Neolithic farming because then we would see larger amounts of G2a wherever we find I1 or I2 and this is not the case. Nor do we see any evidence of farmers mixing with HGs based on the mtDNA. I believe that the EEF we see in Scandinavians from the Lazaridis study was probably brought with the R1b migration there.
 
quite a broad definition of F*
which one is most common among todays Europeans?
isn't that F2?

As far as I know, none of F1, F2, or F3 are common among Europeans. F1-P91 is pretty much Sri Lankan, F2-M427 is pretty much Lahu (although it may have been found in a Swedish Pitted Ware sample--or that could have been a false positive), and F3-M481 is pretty much Indian. H2-P96, which used to be called F3-P96 before its relationship with H was established, is my guess for what these samples were.
 
Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.
 
From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)

I doubt there was sex biased on hunter-farmer mixing. Sometimes hunters and farmers had sex, and I doubt the hunter was usually the male and the farmer usually the female, it was just random. Maybe I'm making it to simplistic, I don't know. Modern European mtDNA and Y DNA has obviously gone under serious drift multiple times which makes it hard to predict ancestry percentages(80% farmer maternal lineages for Balts, but under 30% farmer ancestry) and relatedness based on big haplogroup percentages(like 40% H), and these early Neolithic samples are from a time of admixture and before drift, so it's very interesting to see the results, the Starčevo are the oldest Neolithic Euro mt and Y samples yet and it seems they had much less WHG than later farmers.
 
Sparkey, I'd really like to know your thoughts on the I1 in LBK Hungary I couldn't find the SNP results, was it positive for IJ and I SNPs, and which I1 SNP(s) was it positive for. Do you think it's possible I1a-Df29 clades have been roaming in central Europe since the Mesolithic or Neolithic? I think it is because although I haven't done any research since pretty much last winter, I remember reading that central Europe has a differnt ratio of I1a-Df29 clades than Scandinavia, plus they have I1b. I1 being in Mesolithic and then Neolithic central Europe doesn't explain how it became so popular in Scandinavia(Motalas didn't have it, Sf11 didn't, The PWC hunters didn't, Gok4 didn't). Weird stuff happened with I1, there had to of been some type of epic rise.

It'll be interesting to learn how pre-Indo European west European lineages I2a2 and I1 survived so well compared to G2a, I2a1, F*(96?), etc. It's no suprise that all of the Neolithic G2a's so far except Otzi have G2a-P303 like most modern European G2a, and there are still layers of the signature lineage of WHG; I2a1-P37.

there is something strange about G2a
they seem to have been very succesfull at the early neolithic, being represented in 2 branches : cardium pottery (PF3146 ?) and LBK
yet the only succesfull branch today seems to be P303, which may represent Maykop

I1 did a much better job alltough expansion started very late
 
No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.
 
From the table above it doesn't look like farmers mixed with HGs much only 5% of all U haplogroups in all. One could suppose that women mixed with different cultures more than men, due to patriarchal nature of these societies, and young women being a price during raids of HGs on Farmers or vice versa. Therefore we should expect even less Y haplogroups of hunter gatherers mixed into farmer populations.

Having said that, I should go and read this paper finally, if time allows tonight. ;)

What could have happened is that some I1 hunter-gatherers copied the farming techniques of their G2a neighbours in Hungary, or that a group of I1 warriors invaded some G2a villages, killed off (most of) the men and took the women for them (or raped them). There descendants would have been mostly I1 men with Near Eastern or Balkanic mtDNA. This new hybrid generation could then have grown and prospered and developed into the LBK culture. That would make sense since LBK mtDNA is overwhelmingly East Mediterranean, while I1 appears to have colonised Germany and Scandinavia late, considering that none of the Mesolithic samples from Scandinavia or Germany/Luxembourg were I1 so far.
 
Its interesting that the Stracevo culture was G2a dominant considering this is where we find the oldest examples of Metallurgy, I always thought that the spread of Metallurgy into Europe coincided with R1b but now seems like G2a and the first Neolithic farmers. Its also interesting that the conclusion they draw in the study is that these Neolithic farmers displaced HGs because of the lack of HG mtDNA in the LBK/STA samples and that apparently females had a larger effective population size in Neolithic cultures.

Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.
 
Not quite. I have always said that R1b invaded Europe from the steppes during the Bronze Age, but I never claimed that R1b invented metallurgy. On the contrary, if you read the various haplogroup pages on Eupedia and my forum posts, you'll see that I attributed the rise of copper metallurgy to the cultures of Old Europe, and namely to G2a, J2b and T1a. I also suggested that these three haplogroups brought metallurgy to the steppes and the North Caucasus, where they were absorbed by the R1a and R1b majority. They evolved into G2a3b1, J2b2 and T1a1a1 in the steppes and would later spread throughout Europe and Central/South Asia with the Indo-European migrations.

The odd thing is that J2 and T have not yet been identified in any Neolithic site. The alternative possibility that I proposed last year was that J2 and T came straight from Mesopotamia to the North Caucasus, perhaps together with R1b, or via a latter migration.

It is certain that copper metallurgy spread from the Balkans (Varna and Cucuteni-Trypillian cultures) to the steppes (notably the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures). Considering that G2a was apparently the dominant Neolithic haplogroup in the Balkans, it would make perfect sense that G2a was among the lineages that brought copper metallurgy to the steppes, even if we cannot be sure about J2 and T at present.

It is however R1b and R1a people who were the first to use bronze for making weapons (unlike the contemporary Kura-Araxes culture in the South Caucasus, which used bronze mainly for decorative objects), and that gave them a tremendous advantage.

While I support most of your post, I cannot see J2 and T involved in metal work. My take is because T in anatolia, Levant, Egypt, africa and arabian peninsula is all too young ....there is a gap of 30000 years from origin of T to any of these areas I noted.
I believe T formed around Azeri lands near caspian sea, they were mostly fishermen/hunters ( lezkins) , moved into North Caucasus as you say, and mostly spread around as hunters, that's why the huge dispersal of T and that's why no bones are found for T.....hunters cannot bury themselves. Otzi ,a hunter was only found due to the ice. Farmers bury or cremate the dead.

It would be interesting to see what % increase there would be for T if all pre-2008 papers looked into the found K ydna . It might change opinions.

J2, IMO formed In the south side of the zargos mountains around mesopotamia, are farmers and I cannot see an earlier migration into the north caucasus.

I would like to know why or how T, G, I, H, L and J sat in the caucasus waiting 40000 years for the creation of R to join them...........seems illogical that people sat around that long in that period of history
 
No matter what these people represent I think it is clear from the lack of G2a in central Europe that they were wiped out and our current distributions are the result of Late Neolithic to Iron Age migrations.

with termination wiped out, you mean by force? excluding diseases? or diseases are included.

for example afrodisiac diseases killed more Europeans than American Indians did,
and Alchool more Indians than settlers did.
 
Figure 4. Genetic distance map of the STA-LBK Y chromosomal data.
Y chromosomal genetic distances (Fst) were computed between the STA-LBK samples and 100 present-day
populations of Eurasia and North Africa and visualized on a geographic map. Grey dots denote the
location of present-day populations. Color shadings indicate the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of
Neolithic samples to the modern-day populations. Short distances and great similarities to present-day
populations are marked by red areas. Fst values were scaled by an interval range of 0.01. Fst values higher
than 0.21 were not differentiated (grey areas). The map shows remarkable affinities of the STA-LBK
Downloaded from http://biorxiv.org/ on September 4, 201436
samples to present-day populations of the northwest and south Caucasus. Population information and Fst
values are listed in table S15.

that looks a lot like the current map of hg G: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/26690-Updated-map-of-haplogroup-G
 

This thread has been viewed 47409 times.

Back
Top