search this blog

Friday, February 6, 2015

A couple of AAPA 2015 abstracts to blow your socks off


If anyone reading this is going to the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) in St. Louis next month, I'd love to know what was said at the following presentations.

The origins of the Aegean palatial civilizations from a population genetic perspective

MARTINA UNTERLÄNDER1,2, SUSANNE KREUTZER2 and CHRISTINA PAPAGEORGOPOULOU1. 1 Department of History and Ethnology, Demokritus University of Thrace, 2 Palaeogenetics Group, Institute of Anthropology, Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz.

The present paper investigates the origins of the Aegean pre-palatial civilizations (5th-3rd millennium BC) by applying cutting-edge methods of molecular biology and population genetics. The term Aegean Civilizations refers to the novel human lifeway (agriculture and craft specialization, redistribution systems, intensive trade) that appeared during the end of the Neolithic and the beginning of the Bronze Age in the Aegean. Although many studies exist on archaeological constructions of ethnic and cultural identity on mainland Greece, the Cyclades and Crete, not enough efforts have been made to explore this direction on a population history basis. We have investigated Late, Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age human skeletons (n=127) from the Aegean using ancient DNA methods, next generation sequencing (NGS) technology and statistical population genetic inferences to i) gather information on diversity, population size, and origin of the pre-palatial Aegean Cultures, ii) to compare them on a genetic basis, in terms of their cultural division (Helladic, Cycladic, Minoan) and iii) to investigate their ancestral/non-ancestral status to the Early and Middle Neolithic farmers from Greece. In addition to mitochondrial DNA genomes, by applying a capture-NGS approach we collected information on functional traits of the early Aegean communities in southeastern Europe. Considering the International Spirit that overwhelms the Aegean during the 3rd millennium BC, seen by the wide distribution of artifacts, this palaeogenetic approach provides valuable new insights on population structure of the groups involved in the Neolithic-Bronze Age transition and the spread of specific alleles in this part of Europe.

Phenotypic inference from ancient DNA

IAIN MATHIESON1, WOLFGANG HAAK4, NICK PATTERSON1,2, SWAPAN MALLICK1, BASTIEN LLAMAS4, NADIN ROHLAND1, EADAOIN HARNEY1, SUZANNE NORDENFELDT1, KRISTIN STEWARDSON1, IOSIF LAZARIDIS1, JOSEPH PICKRELL9, ALAN COOPER4, GUIDO BRANDT5, NICOLE NICKLISCH5,6, HARALD MELLER6, KURT W. ALT5,6,7,8 and DAVID REICH1,2,3. 1 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 2 Broad Institute, 3 Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, 4 Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, University of Adelaide, 5 Institute of Anthropology, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, 6 State Office for Heritage Management and Archaeology Saxony-Anhalt and State Heritage Museum Halle, 7Institute for Prehistory and Archaeological Science, University of Basel, 8 Danube Private University, 9 New York Genome Center.

One of the most exciting consequences of recent developments in ancient DNA technology is that we have the ability to infer the phenotypes of ancient samples for traits that cannot be reliably inferred from skeletal remains. Important examples include pigmentation traits, dietary traits like lactase persistence and amylase copy number, and disease resistance mutations. These have relatively simple genetic architectures, but by using information from genome-wide association studies, and by genotyping many more sites, we can also predict the values of polygenic traits that are controlled by many loci, for example height, weight, and complex disease susceptibility. By investigating how they change through time, we can disentangle the effects of natural selection and population turnover in the evolution of these traits. In this study, we present genetic data from a series of samples from seven archaeologically defined cultures in central Europe, ranging from 8000BCE to present. We have genotyped these samples at 390,000 genomic loci, including 30,000 which have known phenotypic effects. We then use this data to distinguish between traits that have changed consistently with population turnovers, traits that have changed apparently neutrally, and traits that have changed dramatically due to recent natural selection. Finally, we investigate whether we can detect selection in polygenic traits like height or weight. These data demonstrate a powerful new source of information about ancient samples, and have the potential to teach us both about the specific traits of these populations, and also about the general mechanisms of evolution and adaptation in human history.

Also worthy of note is this talk on ancient genomes from the Peruvian Andes. The study appears to be another nail in the coffin of old school physical anthropology.

Genome-wide data from ancient Peruvian highlanders and the Population History of South America

LARS FEHREN-SCHMITZ1, PONTUS SKOGLUND2, BASTIEN LLAMAS3, SUSANNE LINDAUER4, ELSA TOMASTO5, SUSAN KUZMINSKY1, NADIN ROHLAND2, SUSANNE NORDENFELT2, SWAPAN MALLICK2, ALAN COOPER3, NICK PATTERSON2,6, WOLFGANG HAAK3 and DAVID REICH2,6,7. 1 Department of Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz, 2 Department of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, 3Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, University of Adelaide, 4 Curt-Engelhorn-Center for Archaeometry, 5 Departmento de Humanidades, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 6Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, 7 Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Despite recent advances in archaeology and population genetics, the number of human dispersals into South America and the routes these settlers took throughout the continent remains subject to controversy. The analysis of DNA from ancient human remains has proven to be an efficient tool to get insights into such ancient population dynamic processes. However, ancient DNA research in South America so far has been mostly restricted to the analysis of the mitochondrial control region and samples 5000 years old and younger. While these studies have increased our understanding of the pre- Columbian population history, inferences have been restricted to female population dynamics and have not allowed us to address relevant aspects like admixture and selection properly. Here, we present genome wide data from pre-Columbian Central Andean individuals from various archaeological sites dating from 7000 BC to 1100 AD. Ancient DNA genomic libraries were analyzed employing both shotgun sequencing and targeted hybridization capture approaches. We compare this data with published genome-wide data from ancient and modern Native American populations and reconcile our results with craniometric studies. Our results show a striking genetic continuity in the Andes over at least 8000 years despite observed changes in cranio-morphological variability. Additionally, our observations support the hypothesis of a single-wave scenario, in which the early and later populations of pre- Columbian South America derived primarily from a single source population.

The AAPA 2015 website is here. You can download a PDF book with all of the abstracts here.

147 comments:

Mike Thomas said...

Its crunch time ! As ancient DNA technology moves to studying southeastern Europe, the Aegean, & central Asia.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I might go. That's about 9 hours from here.

Davidski said...

You can probably get a discount on the tickets if you're a student.

truth said...

I'm intrigued by the Aegean results. I hope it's genome-wide, not just haplogroups.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Is there a number to call for tickets or registration?

Nirjhar007 said...

Superb! can't wait to See the aDNA data!

Krefter said...

The Andean thing is no surprise considering much older American DNA samples. Maybe native Americans are all so related to each other, that there's almost no way in ancient genomes to mark migration and admixture in ancient America.

It'l be interesting to see if any of the Neolithic Aegean people will come out Sardinian-like or if thy were more near eastern and or had significant ANE.

Hopefully bronze age Aegean people will give insight as to why southeast Europeans today are genetically intermediate between (Iberia-Balts)Europe and the Near east. But I bet they'll come out much less European-like than Greeks, and cluster in the near east.

Krefter said...

There's plenty of Americans online who will certainly be there.

Davidski said...

Chad,

For registration go to...

http://meeting.physanth.org

But maybe we know some people who are going? I'll have to ask around.

Mike Thomas said...

@ Krefter
"Hopefully bronze age Aegean people will give insight as to why southeast Europeans today ...."

Im sure they'll prove some insights, but those samples from deep southern Geeece (I presume) cannot be used to speak for the rest of south-eatern Europe. I suspect the former are very much Near Eastern. Whatever the case, areas like northern Greece, Macedonia, and the rest of the Balkans might differ from southern and Island Greeks, as they do today.

Tobus said...

@truth: I hope it's genome-wide, not just haplogroups.

It says: "In addition to mitochondrial DNA genomes, by applying a capture-NGS approach we collected information on functional traits of the early Aegean communities in southeastern Europe"... so sounds like it's at least a decent SNP panel, not just the Y/mt haplogroups.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Chad

If you choose to go, thank you very much for your contribution to the community here.

Alberto said...

Yes, the presentation about the Aegean civilization looks very promising, since it's studying the critical period in which "the 3rd population" came to Europe.

I guess it's not a mystery any more that this 3rd population was Caucasus-like (after it's been confirmed by ancient DNA that it is this population that entered the Pontic Steppe as their staging point into Europe), but it will be interesting to see if the ones who got to Greece arrived from the steppe (and therefore mixed with EHG) or if they entered the Balkans directly from West Asia (and therefore more Armenian-like, without much HG ancestry). Though as Mike said, Bulgaria would have been the perfect place to know, rather than Greece. But I hope Greece will be "good enough" to give us valuable information about it.


@Krefter

Greece received a good amount of Slavic migrations during the middle ages, so my guess is that ancient Greeks should be more Near Eastern (more or less like present day Cypriots and Sicilians). But it will be interesting to see if from the Late Neolithic to the Bronze age they shifted mostly eastwards or also northwards.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Tobus

The greek study seems like its gonna be absolutely incredible, firstly because of the absolutely gigantic number of samples, and secondly because they mention that they got 'Helladic, Cycladean, and Minoan' cultural groups all covered, and early neolithic groups too. The helladic cultures were found on mainland greece.

Hopefully the samples are late Helladic, because thats when we know some places were already greek-speaking from the linear scripts. Earlier helladic is not so clear.

Some period ago, ppl on this blog were talking about the high near east/Anatolia/Caucasus influence in Italy and the Balkans, tracked in ADMIXTURE by components containing both ENF and ANE. Davidski believes that that came in through the secondary products revolution; I raised the prospect of the tyrsenian language family, which contained Lemnian, Rhaetian, Etruscan, and some argue Etecypriot and Eteocretan(Minoan). If my proposal is correct, the Minoan genomes would probably contain more ANE than the neols, while the Helladics--assuming they are late--would contain more ANE and WHG than neols. What's more, this would be evidence that some ANE came directly from the NE into SE Euro, and that ANE was present in NE in contrast to the neol period by that time.

Putting this together with the Sumerian genomes, hopefully we can get some handle on when ANE spread in the NE.

Dienekes has argued that the presence of pervasive caucasus/west asian autosomal influence in W.Eurasia was due to the 'womb of nations', but now we know his timing--neolithic is way off. Sepculatively, this perhaps had to do with the spread of furnace metallurgy, which was imported as an entire package throughout west Eurasia from a single focus after it arrived in the south caucasus foothills from the levant, tying together both mesopotamia, east med, and ultimately atlantic europe and China through the steppe.

Matt said...

Re: Unterlander et al, it'll be nice if they have many SNPs, I read from that they'll probably just be pulling out pigmentation, alcohol dehydrogenase, amylase, lactase, etc. which of course are still interesting in their own way.

It would be nice to see what the Cretan population isolates here - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/141106/ncomms6345/full/ncomms6345.html - are like in this context, however they are apparently not for "population genetic" studies according to the European genome phenome archive where the samples are held.

Re: Mathieson et al, shows that the adna analysis could have relevance to medical genetics, understanding how certain traits formed.

Other interesting papers:
http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session13/kendra-2015-no-longer-the-1-optimizing-ancient-dna-yield-from-saharan-african-samples.html

No longer the 1%: Optimizing ancient DNA yield from Saharan African samples

KENDRA A. SIRAK, DANIEL M. FERNANDES, SARAH CONNELL and RON PINHASI. Department of Anthropology, Emory University, 2School of Archaeology, University College Dublin.
Ancient DNA analysis confronts unique challenges associated with extracting and sequencing depurinated biomolecules often less than 100 base pairs in length while simultaneously battling modern DNA contamination. Additional challenges arise during analysis of samples from hot and arid environments that have been subject to oxidative thermal damage that inhibits extraction and amplification of DNA molecules. Presently, no positive aDNA results have been published from these extreme regions, such as Saharan Africa.

Particularly for samples from hot and arid areas, utilization of aDNA protocols that have been optimized to increase recovery of fragments of short length is necessary. In dedicated aDNA facilities at University College Dublin, we successfully sequenced several specimens from Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia dated to the Early Christian era (500-1400 AD). Petrous bones, which demonstrate superior DNA preservation, were used for this analysis. Powder aliquots were extracted using Dabney et al.’s (2013) optimized extraction protocol. After indexed library preparation, sequencing took place on Illumina’s next-generation sequencing (NGS) platform, with yields up to 22.7% endogenous aDNA attained from the petrous material. Quality control analysis indicated authenticity of the DNA and principle component analysis based on single nucleotide polymorphisms placed the individual around Middle Eastern and Central/South Asian clusters.

This study demonstrates a major step forward in our ability to obtain positive results using ancient specimens from arid regions through optimized extraction protocol and NGS technology. With the door to Saharan aDNA analysis opened, we have the opportunity to improve our understanding of gene flow and admixture throughout Saharan Africa.


Still fairly recent, could be interesting. Capture from arid regions is currently lacking, this may indicate that we won't just be stuck with cool climate adna indefinitely. Petrous bone.

Matt said...

Others:

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session13/lee-2015-ancient-dna-analysis-of-human-remains-from-the-siberian-arctic.html - (arctic, 27000 BP to 200 BP, ten sample)
This could be interesting because it could show some change from Mal'ta like to East Asian like in real time - if that is in fact what happened. Just mtdna though.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session18/hodgson-2015-evidence-for-assortative-mating-in-recently-admixed-humans.html - "We tested for assortative mating with respect to overall ancestry, individual genes, and genes known to be involved in phenotypic variation in Colombians (COL), Puerto Ricans (PUR), Mexican Americans (MXL), African Americans (ASW), Maasai (MKK), Han Chinese (CHS), and European Americans (CEU) using genomic SNP and mated pair data available from the HapMap and 1000 Genomes projects. We find significant assortative mating with respect to overall ancestry in COL, MXL, CHS, and CEU. We then used a sliding window approach to look at individual genes and found that loci with the strongest assortative patterns are often overrepresented for particular biological functions. For example, there are an abundance of genes involved in fertilization with an assortative pattern for European ancestry in MXL. Finally, we looked at genes known to be involved in phenotype, and found that MKK mate assortatively for genes involved in skin color, and ASW mate assortatively for genes involved in skin color and facial morphology." Significant assortative mating with respect to overall ancestry within CHS and CEU?

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session20/zink-2015-the-genetic-background-of-atherosclerosis-in-ancient-mummies.html - likely this has just pulled out the targets they are interested in relating to atherosclerosis.

http://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session40/jantz-2015-is-there-structure-in-the-euro-american-population-evidence-from-cranial-morphology.html - "For each state, the number of main immigrant groups (German, English, Irish, and Italian) was expressed as a proportion of the total White population for each state.... Variation among subregions was significant and showed New England and Pacific coast states to be the most differentiated from each other and from other subregions. Although variation among subregions is significant, it is low. Canonical correlation shows that the main axis of variation separates areas with high frequencies of Germans from those with high frequencies of other ethnicities." Might be interesting for Americans, essentially there aren't many Italian Americans, so German vs Irish & Anglo differences in cranial morph dominate the structure.

Krefter said...

Matt,

Thanks for the abstracts. It's good academics are studying genetics in Americans, because we have evolved into our own breed of human.

European

http://jmowens.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/snooty_-_03.jpg

American

http://www.evilenglish.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/redneck.jpg

Seriously though I think it's a pit ridiculous academics are wasting their time studying American DNA.

Latino and African Americans have more of a mysterious and ethnic genetic history, but white Americans have either recent known immigrant ancestry or known colonial ancestry. Most white Americans are completely unrelated to each other. It's a nationality not ethnicity.

There was no major Euro-Amerindian or Euro-African admixture event. It's hard to find a white American who isn't 100% European, and 23andme proves this.

Just go to the "old world", not much has changed since most American's ancestors left in the last few hundred years.

Arch Hades said...

This is probably a period of time where we see the Eastern strains [haplogroup J2] of the Neolithic package come into predominance, although may have likely increased in he historical era as well of course. The earlier Sardinian like Neolithic package is more Western like..but still completely lacks Northern European like admixture as well of course.

Davidski said...

The Aegean presentation sounds like it's based on complete mtDNA genomes and selected markers for traits, like pigmentation and lactase persistence. I don't think it'll include inferences from high density genome-wide data or even Y-chromosomes.

But I'd be surprised if eventually the study isn't expanded to include high density genome-wide data and Y-chromosomes, because it appears that the new Department of Archaeogenetics at Max Planck is testing the same or similar samples, and they'll be testing everything.

http://www.shh.mpg.de/dag


Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
If you get a chance, could you do a K8 plot with the Lengyel farmer, I believe NE7. Plus, CO1, and BR1 if possible. At least NE7 and CO1. Thanks!

Marnie said...

@Davidski

"We have investigated Late, Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age human skeletons (n=127) from the Aegean using ancient DNA methods, next generation sequencing (NGS) technology and statistical population genetic inferences to i) gather information on diversity, population size, and origin of the pre-palatial Aegean Cultures, ii) to compare them on a genetic basis, in terms of their cultural division (Helladic, Cycladic, Minoan) and iii) to investigate their ancestral/non-ancestral status to the Early and Middle Neolithic farmers from Greece."

Just out of curiousity, since you seem to know something about this study, where and when are the "farmers from Greece" ancient DNA samples?

I'm curious because frequently it is assumed that mainland "Greece" is one contiguous population. On a macro scale, this is true. However, on the micro scale, this runs counter to the historical and linguistic record. It's clearly documented by Thucydides, Herodotus and others that there was ethic differentiation in Mainland Greece during the classical period.

So, if one is going study population turn over in the Greek Islands and Crete originating from Mainland Greece, in order to make it a meaningful study, one would need to carefully include ancient DNA from different parts of Greece and the Southern Balkans.

Marnie said...

Sorry, just noticed a typo.

I meant "It's clearly documented by Thucydides, Herodotus and others that there was *ethnic* differentiation in Mainland Greece during the classical period."

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Just running something by people here...
I'm getting it all set up to go to the conference. It looks like when all is said and done, it's going to set me back about $1000. If anyone is willing to throw in on some costs (any amount), I would greatly appreciate it. I can make sure and sit in on something of interest to you. If any of you are willing to help out, I can post my paypal up here, or you can email me at chadrohlfsen(at)hotmail(dot)com Thanks!

Matt said...

By the way, I'm sure this is stuff you guys and girls who are up on your mtdna have already noticed , I was reading again about the Bollongino study from 2013 in this New Scientist article and found a tidbit interesting-

http://tinyurl.com/md8bmfr

"The migration of early farmers was far from the only major population movement that shaped Europe's genetic diversity, says Guido Brandt, also at Johannes Gutenberg University, who was not involved in Bollongino's study.
Brandt and his colleagues have chronicled how the genetic makeup of Europeans changed between 5500 and 1550 years ago, using genetic samples from the Mittelelbe-Saale region of Germany. This was after the first influx of farmers, but Brandt's team could identify three important shifts in the population during this time period.

Soon after the rise of farming, a group of hunter-gatherers moved south into Germany from Scandinavia. This migration may have given rise to the hunter-gatherer culture that Bollongino found. Soon afterwards, there were two successive waves of migration of farmers and pastoralists into central Europe, first from the east and then from the south-west. Together, they show that by 4500 years ago, the genetic diversity of modern Europe was largely in place."


I sort of slept on this one at the time, with all the interest in Lazaridis 2013 (maybe too much?).

http://tinyurl.com/l7a8yx7 for the actual study at the time -

"Subsequently, around a millennium later in Mittelelbe-Saale, a genetic shift associated with the BEC (Fig. 1, A to D, and table S7), a late representative of the FBC in Central Europe (4), saw an increase in hunter-gatherer lineages (29.4%) and a decrease in farmer lineages (47.1%) (Fig. 3), resulting in a haplogroup composition similar to that of the Scandinavian FBC (Fig. 1C) (10, 15).

Although previous populations show affinities to the Near East, the BEC marks a clear shift toward those in present-day North Europe (movie S1 and figs. S4F to S7F)...

(Then) in the Late Neolithic, we identify two independent events (C and D), each associated with major contemporary Pan-European phenomena. Event C (~2800 cal BCE) is marked by the emergence of the CWC (movie S1), whose subgroups were widespread across Central and Eastern Europe (fig. S2) (2–4)....

Event D (~2500 cal BCE) is defined by the BBC (movie S1), the western counterpart of the CWC (fig. S2) (2–4). BBC groups appeared ~300 years later in Mittelelbe-Saale and coexisted alongside the CWC for more than 300 years (4). The BBC is distinguished from the CWC by the absence of haplogroup I and U2 and an overwhelmingly dominant genetic signature of haplogroup H (48.3%) (fig. S3), leading to a separation of the BBC from all other Mittelelbe-Saale cultures in PCAand cluster analysis (Fig. 1, C and D)."


In the above study, for the Mittelelbe-Saale, the shifts with mtdna with the Bernburg culture (BEC) seems comparably dramatic to CWC.

Although the BEC seems a comparatively tiny cultural horizon (what is happening in other farming populations in Northern / Central / Western Europe at this time?). We'll have to see how much this is reflected by genome wide dna (probably not as dramatically), perhaps in a couple of days.

Marnie said...

@Matt

Brandt's study sounds more plausible. Will have to read it carefully.

Thanks for reminding us.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think those HGs are local. Anything from Scandinavia should have ANE. The new paper states that there was none in Germany before 3000BCE.

Davidski said...

Matt,

There's really no way that Brandt could tell whether those limited BEC mtDNA sequences came from Scandinavians or from locals in northeast Germany who stayed off the radar until the very late Neolithic due to the study's limited sampling strategy. They could have come from the Pomeranian coast or maybe a little further out in Poland. Scandinavia actually seems like the least likely option.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Ostorf hunters were still going till about CWC time.

Alberto said...

"Dienekes has argued that the presence of pervasive caucasus/west asian autosomal influence in W.Eurasia was due to the 'womb of nations', but now we know his timing--neolithic is way off. Sepculatively, this perhaps had to do with the spread of furnace metallurgy..."

Given the huge impact that this population had from South Asia to the British Islands, I'd say they didn't come from a small area, but probably a vast one. And the explanation might be more simple than furnace metallurgy: A large population of herders spanning a very large area (from the southern coast of Iran to the southern border of Kazakhstan), who had to leave their home land, that was turning into a desert, and look elsewhere for greener pastures. Some ended up going south to the Indus Valley and others west, to the Near East and from there into Europe (crossing the Caucasus and into the steppe, and maybe also following the path that EEF travelled some millennia before, through the Balkans).

Regarding the impact they had on European populations, it's important to note that the idea proposed in the Lazaridis et al. paper about an ANE population that influenced all of Europe by bringing ANE ancestry and increasing the WHG ancestry across Europe (reminiscent of the Kurgan Hypothesis) can finally be put to rest. These movements of populations around the Bronze Age brought ANE into most of Europe, but also decreased the WHG ancestry in most of it. In many places quite dramatically. And starting by the steppe people themselves, who apparently were the first ones to receive this migration of "Bronze Age Herders". Like them, all of Northern and Western Europe became much less WHG (especially the north), with a clear shift to east and south.

Well, unless someone is still willing to defend the idea that the Baltic area, Scandinavia and the British Islands were populated by Sardinian-like people in the late Neolithic.

Matt said...

There's really no way that Brandt could tell whether those limited BEC mtDNA sequences came from Scandinavians or from locals in northeast Germany who stayed off the radar until the very late Neolithic due to the study's limited sampling strategy. They could have come from the Pomeranian coast or maybe a little further out in Poland.

I actually don't know enough about the archaeology - I assume Bradt is going with what would be a mainstream archaeological interpretation of Bernberg culture, but who knows.

Really the main point seems to be the convergence of a "haplogroup composition similar to that of the Scandinavian FBC", probably we can't place too strong an interpretation on what is happening in other close by cultures which aren't tested.

The Bernburg (BEC) mtdna change really only raises the question of what was actually happening in Northern and Central Europe for the 500 years prior to the emergence of Corded Ware there - from 3,100 - 2,650 BC / 5,100 - 4,650 BP.
Why does it appear that the mtdna of the farmers in Central Germany was changing to a Scandinavian farmer and hunter gatherer like profile?

(whether or not this is actually characteristic of Scandinavian only and not other closeby regions as well).

You've talked before about a study which compared the nutritional status of a Lengyel farmer, from Poland prior than the BEC, 5690-4950 BP, to a Corded Ware farmer-pastoralist, also from Poland, just after the BEC, 4,160 - 3,900 BP, where the farmer had weaker nutritional indicators - http://polishgenes.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/corded-ware-people-more-versatile-and.html. It sounds like the Lengyel Culture from just before the time span for BEC were trying to feed a lot more people on around the same amount of dietary protein / calcium / etc. to me?

The years between 5,850 BP to 5,000 BP seem associated with a really significant population decline in Europe - http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131001/ncomms3486/fig_tab/ncomms3486_F2.html. (Interestingly in the detail, North and Central Germany are relatively weakly affected.)

It's the kind of thing which makes you wonder if farming in Central Europe hadn't had problems before the arrival of Corded Ware (climate change probably) and if the farmers there weren't trying to solve it already by incorporating fishers / hunters and their subsistence strategies into their population and diet and delay and defer reproduction to have fewer children before the Corded Ware showed up. It still seems like there was fairly sharply significant change with CW in the Late Neolithic either way.

Davidski said...

Alberto,

You're confusing the Neolithic transition with Dienekes' fictional Bronze Age "womb of nations".

The Near Eastern population that helped to give rise to Yamnaya was already present, probably in a mixed form, in the Samara Valley well before 3000 BC (because the mixture with the local EHG was already complete by that time). So it had to have left the Near East during the Neolithic, not the Bronze Age.

There was no Bronze Age invasion of Europe by the Indo-Europeans and no womb of nations.

Romulus said...

Its very easy to know if the HGs are from Scandinavia or local to North Germany, they can analyze tooth enamel for dietary characteristics and other properties of the remains. This type of analysis was done on BBC remains and proved they were not locals but had migrated from far away. I forget the study that it was from but it is possible to tell if remains are local or migratory and it is not from the dna.

Romulus said...

Here we go, Strontium Isotope analysis is the name for it.

Davidski said...

No, the easiest way to tell is with full mtDNA genomes and genome-wide data.

There are serious problems with using diet and stable isotopes to infer migration and you can see what those problems are in this study...

http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/view/188

Mike Thomas said...

Dave;
Sure Isotopic limitations are well known. But how can full sequence DNA unequivocally prove the locality or foreigness, esepcially when we are possibly talking about movements from nearby, arguable genetically very similar populations ?

Romulus said...

I haven't finished reading the study you posted, about 70% of the way through, thank you for the link. It seems that their isotope analysis was inconclusive based on the results, but I don't see this as grounds to dismiss the value of isotope analysis in other cases.

Davidski said...

Because with complete mito sequences, as well as Y-DNA and genome-wide data, we can analyze the genetic genealogy of the individuals, and not just their population affinities.

And I don't think that Swedish and continental hunter-gatherers were all that similar, considering that Gokhem2 probably arrived in Sweden from the continent, considering her lack of ANE. German hunter-gatherers probably lacked ANE.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Alberto

Not necessarily disagreeing, but CW, which was the vector of IE influences into Europe--not Yamnaya--probably increased WHG ancestry throughout Europe. And Yamnaya had a large fraction of WHG too, higher than the non-ENA portion of any present-day Central Asians, which doesn't make them similar to central asians autosomally any more than they are european autosomally.

Also, the reason I proposed that is because furnace metallurgy was one of those things, like the alphabet, that was only discovered once and spread throughout Eurasia as a complete package during the metal ages from South Cauc/North Mesopotamia; and a lot of things happened in the Cauc and surrounds during exactly that time frame that might be assoc with the spread of ANE South--which we know did not exist in the neol in both the ME and East Med previously--and also the spread of an ANE and ENF pop into the steppe. E.g. the rise of metal age civs/cultures in anatolia and East med, the southward movt of semitic from North Levant/Zagros into Mesop and the rise of PIE with pastoralism + metallurgical practices from the south. These ultimately dispersed a series of highly similar metallurgical technologies from Western Europe to China.

I would't be surprised if the Armenian-like, ENF- and ANE-rich population that accounts for ~50% of Yamnaya ancestry also accounted for pop turnovers elsewhere in the ME and Med in the same period. Perhaps this is what ADMIXTURE has discovered traces of in that caucasus centered component that appears so commonly and unites almost all W.Eurasians in ADMIXTURE runs.

Completely speculatively, perhaps this explain the YHap J in BR2? And elsewhere too.

@ Matt
I've noticed that as well, but just assumed that that dovetailed with the increase in HG ancestry found by Reich, which is in the same timeframe.

Its indeed somewhat perplexing what could have caused this. Probably some kind of change in ecological or economic circumstances? Climate? Would like to hear archaeology speak on this.


@ Davidski
You've pointed out an interesting discrepancy between the fact that HG ancestry increased between Stuttgart in Germany and Gok in Scand, but this doesn't seem to come from HGs in Scand as they had ANE. Perhaps it happened in Germany already?

On the other hand, I don't think that dating the ENF influence in Yamanaya to the neolithic is an accurate statement. I'm not 100% sure of this, but there doesn't seem to be a usual 'neolithic' as conventionally defined east of the baltics and Ukraine?

In any case, it appears that the rise in ENF ancestry described by Reich occurred in just 4000-3000 BC, well into the timeframe of Ymanaya but 1) much, much later than Samara/Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk 2) and not long before Yamnaya had contributed autosomally to CW, aka Ymanaya pops had ther first expansion. Which seems to me like a more sophisticated series of cultural transfers than just neolithic technologies were involved into the social and economic practices of the Yamnaya.

@ Marnie

Welcome back!

I was quite disappointed when you said you weren't gonna post here ever again, because your archaeo is really good. Well, better than some ppl's here, at least. A few months back some ppl on this blog referenced your excellent articles on Saharan ancient lakes and the spread of mtDNA U to reconcile high WHG figures in North Africa, for e.g. So some people appreciate your presence here.

Ppl insult each other here all the time, its mostly meaningless, don't take it too personally.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think that the climate issues caused a lot of changes. Not only do we see farmers relying more on domestic animals, but even groups like Etrebolle picked up pigs and it looks like grains were acquired from farmers to the south.

Climate change would've forced more interaction between these groups. It is towards the end of the Middle Neolithic that we even see farmer mtDNA show up in forager sites.

Those population busts we see probably forced their hands into marrying into each others groups a little more, causing that sudden spike in WHG as well as the increase in frequency of y-I and m-U. Compile that with what may be a higher mortality rate in farmer sites, due to reliance upon agriculture, and you may get what we see.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think the WHG increase, occurring what appears to be simultaneously in Spain, Germany, and Hungary, points to this.

Davidski said...

rk,

The Neolithic economy was well established on the western steppe already during the Eneolithic, so any claims that the 50/50 EHG/mystery population from Samara took shape due to Bronze Age migrations from West Asia lacks any logic.

The most quoted theory is that the break up of the CT culture caused interactions with hunter-gatherers of the western steppe, which led to a pastoralist economy taking over the steppe right up the Urals. This is briefly outlined in the paper I linked to already...

http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/article/view/188

Whether this is correct or not isn't really important. What is important is that the Near Eastern-like influences on the western steppe, whatever their source, maybe even Turkestan, started during the Eneolithic at the very latest. So it's not surprising to me that the Yamnaya genomes from the Samara Valley dated to 5,000 YBP are not Bronze Age invaders from the West Asia, but rather native Eastern Europeans of their period.

Davidski said...

rk,

Let's see exactly what Reich discovered in the rather northerly Samara Valley.

"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."

"In eastern Europe, the hunter-gatherers of Russia >7,000 years ago were distinct from those of the west, having an increased affinity to a ~24,000 year old individual from Siberia, but this affinity was reduced by ~5,000 years ago in the Yamnaya steppe pastoralists because of admixture with a population of Near Eastern ancestry."

So, the mixing up north started at least 6,000 years ago.

Is that the Bronze Age? Where exactly? And we don't actually know when the relevant migration from the Near East started. It might well have started more than 6,000 years ago.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ David
The eneolithic is copper, and not bronze. And the Khvalynsk culture dates to 7000 ybp, and the samara--also eneolithic--to even older. 8kya to 7kya is the timeframe he talks about for russia being HG autosomally, in the summary of his talk--not the abstract. He gives more timings in the summary than in the abstract.

I'm not saying that the Yamnaya arrived from West Asia. I'm saying that part of the ancestry of Yamnaya did so, and not as early as Samara and Khvalynsk cultures, which are in fact the eneolithic.

Reich explicitly states in his abstract that Russian pops in 8-7kya, aka exactly the time of the eneolithic Samara and Khvalynsk cultures, are HGs autosomally. Furthermore he dated the changes in the Yamnaya area with the intro of Near East-like autosomal infls to 4000-3000 BC explicitly in his abstract, cotemporaneous with the rise in HG ancestry in European farmers. Perhaps this is due to sampling, but with 69 genomes and such bold statements I'm not sure this is the case.

Davidski said...

rk,

I have no idea what case you're trying to make exactly?

The genetic shifts in the Samara Valley started 6,000 years ago, so the relevant migrations had to have happened earlier, because the people causing these changes obviously didn't arrive in the Samara Valley on a direct flight from the Near East.

Are you claiming that there were multiple migrations from the south, and the Yamnaya population formed 5000 years ago as a result of the last of these migrations, just before 3000 BC?

If so, what are you basing this on?

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski

My case is pretty clear. Who said the genetic shifts started 6kya? Perhaps the genetic shifts started 6kya. But it certainly did not start any earlier, not did it start with the eneolithic, neither did it start with the neolithic, which is what you were trying to say, because the genomes during both times were still HG.

And the yamnaya horizon appeared in 5.6kya, at most 400, and in all probability < 400 years after the genetic shifts began, did it not? or it might have taken place over 400 years, gradually. If so, I don't see what's the problem drawing a conjectural link between the arrival of a new basis of the economy and the development of a new, expansive culture. The bronze metallurgy of the steppe certainly did not arise there.

I mentioned before that I don't think its likely that the neolithic influences in yamnaya arrived from Europe, because Meditteranean EEF in Europe had so much WHG since its inception, that agricultural influences in the steppe such that we have ~35% ENF in yamna would require whoever that introduced ANE to have an extremely high ANE and little WHG, and as far as we know such an ANE pop did not exist in this part of the world at the time.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

On the correlation of natural and cultural processes in the Neolithic–Volga-Kama area

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/authors37/37_25.pdf

Davidski said...

Here are those quotes again. And keep in mind that the genetic shifts could not have started in the Samara Valley north of the Caspian as soon as the Near Eastern groups stepped onto the steppe just north of the Black Sea and the Caucasus. That's because migrations, settling down and mixing all take time.

"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."

"In eastern Europe, the hunter-gatherers of Russia >7,000 years ago were distinct from those of the west, having an increased affinity to a ~24,000 year old individual from Siberia, but this affinity was reduced by ~5,000 years ago in the Yamnaya steppe pastoralists because of admixture with a population of Near Eastern ancestry."

Davidski said...

This might be useful. I'm not sure how much it's worth, but it seems to match the DNA data.

Cultural and Demic Diffusion of First Farmers, Herders, and their Innovations Across Eurasia

http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.00201

Nirjhar007 said...

@Guys
There are CLEAR signature of Intrusions starting from 4000 BC into the Samara/Yamnaya area, Guess what was the culprit?.

Davidski said...

Middle Neolithic farmers.

Nirjhar007 said...

No.

Mike Thomas said...

@ David

"So, the mixing up north started at least 6,000 years ago."

Im not sure that necessarily follows from the info you quoted. It could have been later than that, down to c. 5000 YBP.

* About the start of pastoralism on Ponto-Caspian steppe (Ie west Eurasian segment of the steppe, c.f. 'central' & 'eastern').
- pastoralism had commenced by 4000 BC.
- *hundreds* of sites explored from the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture show not only evidence of agriculture, but animal husbandry and their use in secondary products.
- east of the Don, communities were still forager - hunters, with further east you go the more mobile the local hunting communities are with regard to settlement features. They engages in occasional exchange with the Balkans and forest-steppe regions, adapting some of their pottery and burial styles (!)
- by 4000 BC, the communities on the steppe propper east of Dnieper and DOn (Future Yamnaya culture) were still mostly hunters with smaller amounts of herding also present.
- the forager communities closer to the Balkans and Cucuteni had adapted elements of farming and cattle rearing - the soon to be dominant faunal type in the western steppe.
- specialized pastoralism on the steppe begins 3200 BC (ie EBA), and repidly becomes the dominant economic strategy on the steppe.
- toward the west, Yamnaya assemblages were domianted by cattle, whilst east in the Caspian region, it was sheep and goats.
- wheeled vehicles were first discovered in Triopyle sites (3500 BC). Further east, in central Eurasia, the eariest models of wheel have been found in a site in Turkmenistan (c. 2500 BC). and by 3 - 2 Millenia, the chariot had spread throughout Eurasia and adjacent southern Eurasia. Undoubtdely, wherever first invented, the rise of Chariots developed from earlier carts pulled by animals, perhaps initially oxen and camels, the more consistently horses. At present, the earliest evidence for wheeled-vehicles being pulled by equids comes from mid-3rd mill BC Near East.
- whatever the case, it is possiblr, if not probable, the chariots eveolved in a 'multi-regional' character. At least, there might have been a few key centres where it formed, eg Sintashta, the Ur Empires, etc.
- thus various elements, whether horse domestication, pastoralist, burial types and warfare methods rapidly spread, from the late 4th mill, across vast expanses of Eurasia. Clearly, no one region develped all of these, which can be used to 'show us' where Kurgan the 'homeland' was.
- back to Yamnaya, it appears to have beem a relatively rapidly shift to pastoralism c. 32000 BC, whose roots, however, were present for hundreds of years, prior. At least for those western-most proto-Yamnaya forager communities, exchange and probably migration from Late Tripolye, was clear.

Thus I suspect that the southern impulses seen in Yamnaya are likely to be , at least in part, from the Balkan-type agricultural communities. The later influences from Majkop are clear also. However, We don't yet know if the Majkop itself received any genetic impulse from the Near East, esp given the rise of the Majkop culturally / economically is still hotly debated.

Nirjhar007 said...

I mostly Agree Mike BTW What is your guess to my question above?.

Mike Thomas said...

which question ? You asked two

Nirjhar007 said...

The 4000 BC one:).

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski

Perhaps. But if the samples remained HG in eneolithic cultures--and they are post-neolithic cultures--for over 1000s of years, surely the later ENF intrusions into the descendant cultures are not assoc with intro of neolithic technology, which had been there for 1000s of years already?

If Reich encountered diversity in aDNA in Russia it would surely be mentioned in the abstract.

If those genetic shifts that increased the contribution of ENFs took place even later than 6kya, which is what the mtDNA data seems to show, that just brings them closer and closer to the emergence of the Yamnaya. As I've said, I don't think the yamna spoke the language of their matrilineal ancestors, but I see no reason to deny the contribution of technological and cultural influences from the south into the Yamnaya and their probable correlation to the ENF introgression and cultural and social innovation just before the rise of the Yamnaya.

So I continue to maintain that it is inappropriate to say 'neolithic influences' account for the ENF in Yamnaya, when the process occurred well, well into the metal ages.

@ Chad
Thank you for the paper.

Davidski said...

If the genetic composition of northern steppe groups started changing 6,000 years ago (ie. typical Neolithic mtDNA haplogroups started showing up 6,000 YBP amongst typical forager haplogroups in the Samara Valley), then the mixing between the Neolithic migrants and steppe foragers was probably underway somewhere, even if not in the Samara Valley itself.

So this whole process appears to have been well underway by the time the Bronze Age rolled around.

The paper I posted which models changes on the steppe based on C14 data agrees with this version of events, showing a combination of demic and cultural diffusion from the southern steppes influencing the middle Volga by 3500 BC.

I'm not sure how else to explain this?

Mike Thomas said...

Nirj, to your question I have two answers.

Firstly, I know what *you* think - central Asia.

Personally, my guess would be speculative. As probably virtually anyone, here, would consider the Balkans, West Asia, Mesopotamia, central Asia, or mixture thereof.

As for the Aegean, I can only hope they in the future do autosomal and Y DNA sequencing also. However, if I had to guess, archaeolgically and linguistically, the roots of the Mycenaean civilization are clearly related to western and central Anatolia, and further still - central Asia; and not the steppe.

Matt said...

CR: Those population busts we see probably forced their hands into marrying into each others groups a little more, causing that sudden spike in WHG as well as the increase in frequency of y-I and m-U.

I think that sounds reasonable - I think of it more as a process of TRB (and others) seeing that hunter gatherers specifically had skills that could work to get scarce dietary protein and minerals in a time when farmers were forced to fall back on low quality foods (high population expansion, poor climate) and then consciously integrating hunter gatherers. Where hitherto they hadn't really needed to as much due to quality protein, etc. from domestic animals and crops.

Dynamic cultures solving the problems they had, rather than being forced exactly, but that is just interpretation and phrasing in part (and it's also difficult to mind read 5000 year old dead people who left no evidence of what they thought or felt).

CR: I think the WHG increase, occurring what appears to be simultaneously in Spain, Germany, and Hungary, points to this.
Thinking about this, as evidence that this truly was an independent increase, before we see the new paper it does seem that Spanish and Central European farmers had differentiated mtdna pools -

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1660/20130373. (It seems there's some division over the presence of mtdna H in Spain before the Neolithic (Brandt takes it as true, some people on the web seem critical), but I think the analysis still stands).

On mtdna - "Pairwise FST-estimates show that Scandinavian farmers were most similar to Central European farmers (FST = −0.141 (95% CI: −0.280, −0.002); the negative FST-estimates suggest that there is no differentiation between these groups; figure 2). Both these groups were significantly differentiated from the third group of farmers analysed, the Iberian farmers (FST = 0.292 (95% CI: 0.083, 0.500) and FST = 0.306 (95% CI: 0.181, 0.431) for Scandinavian and Central European farmers, respectively).

Note, however, that in the neighbour joining tree based on pairwise genetic divergence between groups, all three farmer groups form a joint cluster compared with all hunter–gatherers (figure 3). The Scandinavian farmers were also distinct from both Neolithic Scandinavian and Mesolithic Central European hunter–gatherers (FST = 0.206 (95% CI: 0.026, 0.385) and FST = 0.222 (95% CI: 0.0586, 0.386)). "


That could increase our confidence that any increase in hunter gatherer affinity in their populations would have local roots rather than CE->Spain or Spain->CE flows.

Mike Thomas said...

But yes, Davidski, my long-winded summary is consistent with what ur saying . Likely , it continued over the 6000-5000 BP period, and was not a singlular event.

Nirjhar007 said...

Oh God! Guys I asked the REASON for the Intrusions NOT from Where or By Whom! thats why i used WHAT not ''FROM WHERE'' or ''WHOM''!!:).

Alberto said...

@Davidski

"You're confusing the Neolithic transition with Dienekes' fictional Bronze Age "womb of nations"."

The Bronze Age population movements I refer to happened in Europe. Surely the high-ANE population moved into West Asia during the Neolithic. And entered the steppe through the Caucasus during the late Neolithic too. But the movements across Europe happened mostly during the Bronze age (in a broad sense).

None of that changes the basic facts that the model proposed in Laz. et al. paper of (EEF + (WHG+ANE)) is not correct. It is a more complex thing ((EEF + WHG) + (NE+ANE+WHG)), but the end result is the opposite as the proposed: These Bronze Age population "turnovers" (in Europe), didn't increase the WHG ancestry across the continent. They mostly decreased it, and quite abruptly in most of the north at least.

IOW, it was not the steppe people (WHG*ANE) who caused these turnovers. It was a Central Asian population with a much more "southern" profile who did it, and who only picked up WHG ancestry once inside Europe (like EEF before them). It's quite a different picture.

@Nirjhar007

Desertification?

Nirjhar007 said...

@Alberto
''Desertification?''
Quite right! but caused by what?.

Davidski said...

Alberto,

Do you have any sources or data about this population movement from Central Asia to Europe during the Neolithic?

The closest things I can think of are some minor interactions between the western steppe groups and those from east of the Urals and the Maikop people (if we actually are to believe that they were partly Central Asian).

Otherwise, the bulk of the Near Eastern admixture on the western steppe has to be sourced from the breaking up of the CT mega settlements west of the Dnieper.

Alberto said...

I guess you refer to a specific climate change from a specific period. And it might very well be that event that caused a sudden increase in migration.

But in general, apart from certain sudden fluctuations, warming since the Paleolithic times is a continuous trend. I don't think that Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan... are deserted because of one single event. It just happened along millennia and people had to move elsewhere looking for pastures.

Nirjhar007 said...

No David There are tons of Materialistic and Anthropological Evidences!
Of Course CT also played a important Role.....

Nirjhar007 said...

@Alberto
''I guess you refer to a specific climate change from a specific period. And it might very well be that event that caused a sudden increase in migration.''
BINGO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

Davidski said...

I mean hard empirical data, not old school anthropological hokey pokey.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Alberto
''But in general, apart from certain sudden fluctuations, warming since the Paleolithic times is a continuous trend. I don't think that Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan... are deserted because of one single event.''
NO it was the catalyst as all ways....

Nirjhar007 said...

@David
''I mean hard empirical data, not old school anthropological hokey pokey.''
Please read this- Bernard Sergent
Les Indo-Européens. Histoire, langues, mythes
Do you know french?:)

Alberto said...

@David

Unfortunately the data is missing, as far as I know. That's why I say that this population "probably" came from a vast area (vast because of the large impact they had in a large area of the world). And there really are not many other options than to think of Iran and Central Asia. But yes, we have to wait for Ancient DNA to confirm (or deny) this.

It certainly seems much more likely that the proposed model in the Laz et al paper of a MA-1 population from Siberia mixing somewhere around Kazakhstan with HG from the western steppe and then this mixed (WHG+ANE) population causing a turnover in an Old Europe populated by Sardinian-like people (roughly in line with the Kurgan Hypothesis).

And at least now we do have ancient DNA proving that the people from the western steppe didn't mix with a Siberian ANE-exclusive population, but with a Near Eastern rich in ANE one (Armenian like). Since we also know that early Near Easterners didn't have ANE, we have to guess that this ANE population moved into the Near East from somewhere else (and again, the options are quite limited, so guessing is not that difficult).

Do you have a better theory?

Alberto said...

BTW, I don't specifically link this population with PIE. I have no idea about which language they spoke (and if they came from a large area they might as well spoken different ones).

In any case I doubt these people were some legendary warriors riding horses and waving axes, sent by the dictates of the God of Thunder to set the world on fire and submit the inferior population from Old Europe and South Asia. I don't know if such thing ever existed.

These people were probably simple herders having to leave their home land as a way for survival. Nothing very romantic about it.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Davidski

Why are you trusting these methods now? These were the kinds of methods that produced an agri exp for IE from anatolia.

Here's what the authors have to say about their model for agro+pastoralism in Europe.

"We performed three different simulations, one with
mixed diffusion, one with exclusively demic diffusion and
one with exclusively cultural diffusion. For Europe, these
three simulations have been shown to equally well represent
the European radiocarbon record. "

How is that consistent with aDNA data? Its promptly grenaded by it.

And its not the first time arcchaeological models have been detonated by aDNA data.

If the Reich lab says that the southern steppes were quite homogeneously HG during >6kya, which the abstract seems to suggest, then I don't see a way around the strong suggestion of a late intro of sophisticated cultural and tech packages from the south. After all 50% is a huge figure in autosomal, even spread over a few hundred years.

And I don't think they would say otherwise, things like Gok and Ajvide were found almost next to each other and published in the same papers.


@ Alberto
It seems like the agri exp from Zagros to India encountered mostly ANE HGs instead of the WHG ones in Eur, as C+S Asia have such high levels.

So a source of the ANE+ENF pop into both the ME and Steppe from anywhere from zagros east seems to pass the smell test. But as to which cultural movts, archaeo movts, what economic models, etc. its really hard to say at this point.

Davidski said...

rk,

Which abstract suggests that the southern steppes were quite homogeneously HG during >6kya?

Don't you mean the northern steppes near the Urals? That's where the Samara Valley is.

Nirjhar007 said...

@RK
''But as to which cultural movts, archaeo movts, what economic models, etc. its really hard to say at this point.''
Errr... Read the Book Its Monumental.

ryukendo kendow said...

OK, bad geography, but my point still stands.

These types of methods are extremely primitive. A few years back Peter Turchin tried to do one for ancient pop density, surely something easier to model, and there was a loose 'family resemblance' in the resulting maps with actual data, but a gigantic sport of high density in Siberia and the british isles and almost no one in Central Asia, so....

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Matt

Thank you for the papers.

The assortative mating thing is incredibly interesting, esp among phenotypically homogeneous pops like CHS and CEU. I wonder how ppl are able to tell? There might be all kinds of hidden social mechanisms which only these types of data can show us.

There was a paper a few years back which showed that white americans assortatively paired for north vs. south european ancestry mostly, except for a marked excess of pairing of northern females with southern males, so there has been some inkling of these types of phenomena.

About the following quote:
"For example, there are an abundance of genes involved in fertilization with an assortative pattern for European ancestry in MXL."

'For example, there are an abundance of genes involved in fertilization with an assortative pattern in MXL.' makes sense as a statement, but what is 'For example, there are an abundance of genes involved in fertilization with an assortative pattern for European ancestry in MXL.' even supposed to mean?

Do you have any idea what the authors were trying to say?

Matt said...

RK: Do you have any idea what the authors were trying to say?

My read of it would be that the genetics indicates

1) people with European ancestry in MXL mate together more often than they should by chance

2) that people with similar variants involved in fertilization of European origin in MXL successfully mate together more often than they would be expected to even given the assortative population structure from 1). This might demonstrate that the fertilization genes are "driving" the assortative relationship shown by 1) much more than facial features, pigment, etc in that population.

This might not be so surprising if there is some slight co-evolution for fertility between men and women in the European group or Native American group, etc (these are the main two sources of ancestry for MXL I think).

Clearly everyone is still interfertile, so it must be a slight effect, but you would expect evolution for fertility to favor being fertile with people from the evolutionary environment and not to "care" too much about evolving to be fertile with people who weren't in the environment (even if they'd make good or even more optimum mates), except insofar as this also serves fertility with people in the environment (within population variation is high so fertility couldn't evolve to be too specific?).

I'm not sure what kind of ancestral substructure there could be in CHS and CEU - we know these populations seem plausibly combinations of differentiated ancient populations as ascertained through methods like ADMIXTURE on genotype, as well as structured recent populations as ascertained through other means like LD (e.g. CEU probably has German, Scandinavian, English, Irish ancestry).

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Easy on the CT stuff... It's influence never spread east of central Ukraine. Not even Maykop and CT show any kind of contact. Balkan copper in Samara doesn't equal DNA from there. Farming probably crossed the Caucasus around 6000 BCE.

Nirjhar007 said...

@Chad
So there is a chance we will get some information on Yamnaya aDNA this Tuesday?.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

No clue, but I would doubt they give anything new before the paper comes out.

Nirjhar007 said...

how much time till publication any remote gross idea?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It must not be before Tuesday. Your guess is as good as mine.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Maybe, someone here can access this.

NEW DATA ON RADIOCARBON CHRONOLOGY OF NEOLITHIC CERAMICS FROM THE VOLGA-KAMA REGION ☆

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S156301100900004X

Mike Thomas said...

Krefter - you still going on Tuesday ?

Davidski said...

Krefter isn't going to the Reich talk, but we both know of someone who is.

Davidski said...

Okay, I've deleted all the personal off topic stuff. If anyone wants to discuss Marnie's theories about Eurogenes et al., please do so at her blog or over e-mail. Here's a link to get you started.

http://linearpopulationmodel.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/krefter-academic-researcher-doesnt.html

Mike Thomas said...

Ah, Chad . I was going to offer a contribution

Davidski said...

Chad's comment about his trip is still up.

If he makes it over to St Louis I'll put up a post so that he can write reports from the talks in the comments section. I'll also remind everyone that they can help him cover the costs of the trip.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

David,
If you like, go over the abstract and pick out the ones you'd like me to attend. Just include the day, room, and time. You can e-mail it to me if you like. I'll be reserving my room and all in the next day or two.

Krefter said...

Davidski,

Can you prepare a post tomorrow where people will comment leaks from the Reich Oxford conference? We should have some new info in the next 24 hours.

Grey said...

@rk

"If the Reich lab says that the southern steppes were quite homogeneously HG during >6kya, which the abstract seems to suggest, then I don't see a way around the strong suggestion of a late intro of sophisticated cultural and tech packages from the south."

If the change is only or mainly mtdna and it happened after the steppe people had developed a pastoralist horse culture then they could have been mostly captives.

Ina lot of those sort of cultures the older men with large herds monopolize the women so the young men raid for wives.

.

@Alberto

"In any case I doubt these people were some legendary warriors riding horses and waving axes...These people were probably simple herders..."

Or population expansion + older male monopoly on females = mobs of young men going wife hunting.

Mike Thomas said...

I payPal'ed $ 150

Grey said...

@rk @Matt

"I wonder how ppl are able to tell?"

I was gonna say scent maybe but did a quick google and

http://www.wikigenes.org/e/gene/e/179557.html

"these genes may play an important role in post-embryonic development"

if those are the same MXL genes you're talking about

which speaks to this if i'm understanding it right

"2) that people with similar variants involved in fertilization of European origin in MXL successfully mate together more often than they would be expected to even given the assortative population structure from 1). This might demonstrate that the fertilization genes are "driving" the assortative relationship shown by 1) much more than facial features, pigment, etc in that population."

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Wrong. Again"

Managed to figure out how population growth and migration growth can happen at the same time yet?

I'll repeat it again just in case.

pop. growth: +1000/year
mig. growth: +500/year

Mike Thomas said...

@ Grey

"Or population expansion + older male monopoly on females = mobs of young men going wife hunting."

Wrong. Again.

PLease reference the demographic data from burials and settlements which highlights the excess of young men, unable to secure wives, thus migrating on .

I won;t hold my breath.

Mike Thomas said...

Grey, stop BS'ing with your stupid numbers. Show me hard evidence from archaeological field work. I m not so interested in what you **think* happened. This isn't philosophy.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

My paypal is c_rohlfsen at hotmail dot com.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"I won;t hold my breath."

I'll say please.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Grey, stop BS'ing with your stupid numbers."

What you think - at least last time this was discussed - was it's "impossible" for pop. growth and migration growth to happen at the same time.

I'm just pointing out how stupid that is on a purely arithmetical basis.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

lolz

Mike Thomas said...

Grey;

"as it's "impossible" for pop. growth and migration growth to happen"

No; that's not what I said. I said- for such massive migration to occur, to the extent which it radically shifted the genetic structure of Europe, and large parts of Asia, then this would have required large numbers (in gross, crude terms) to facilitate this

Now, even if the Yamnaya region had this potential (I doubt it, given that it was not over-populated, contrary to your unfounded speculations), the sheer emigration would have caused a drop of the number of settlements/ burials going into the late Yamnaya / early Catacomb period, population growth or not.

A bit of arithmetic for you, Grey :)

Base population 1, 000
Population growth: + 250
Massive migration (required to account for genetic results): 750:

Net residual: 500

Comparative 'drop'; - 500
And the case of 19th century

Victorian England doesn;t compare.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"No; that's not what I said"

Well it's in the previous thread so I guess I could go check if i cared enough but no need as

"for such massive migration to occur"

has another simple flaw.

1000 people/year (small amount)

multiplied by 100 years

= large amount.

.

Anyway the logic based point I am making is:

if you have a hypothetical polygamous population where the females are monopolized by the older males and so the younger males raid for wives from nearby settled populations then over time although the ydna would stay the same the adna and mtdna of the raider population could completely change.

The raiders could over time turn into the people they raided (apart from their ydna).

.

Seeing as that is logically sound your "Wrong. Again." was

wrong

again.

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"Now, even if the Yamnaya region had this potential (I doubt it, given that it was not over-populated, contrary to your unfounded speculations)"

Erm...as I recall it was you saying it was experiencing population growth at the time that meant there couldn't have been a migration.

Mike Thomas said...

Ok; then grey .

Please present the palaeo- demographic evidence to support ur Theory

Literally hundreds of yamnaya kurgans have been uncovered ; so ur idea will have plenty of supporting data: ......................
...................
.........,..........

Mike Thomas said...

Also; please present the data proving these gaol-directed raids (on horseback) which you have hallucinated

Marnie said...

Hey Guys, a nice heated exchange. I don't see Krefter, Mr. Manners, coming in to tell you to be more "humble".

Even if the older males pushed out younger ones, it's unlikely that they would to a great degree pass on their ydna, but not their autosomes.

There is some research that suggests that as ydna is lost, so are related autosomes to a greater degree than for mtdna, but that probably occurs only over tens of thousands of years . . . Melissa A. Wilson Sayres research.

Actually, what that says is that as ydna is lost, over the long timeframe, if ydna were lost, related autosomes would be lost too. So in this case, it is even more unlikely that men could pass on their ydna, but not their autosomes.

Grey said...

Just for illustration say population A has

100 males
100 females

and 20 older males monopolize the 100 females

and so the remaining 80 younger males get a wife each from raiding a neighboring settled population B

then the next generation would be produced by

20 male A & 100 female A
+
80 male A & 80 female B

so average A adna and mtdna goes down while A ydna remains the same

then repeat over multiple generations.

#

Anyway not saying this definitely did happen I'm saying **if** the shift in steppe dna was mainly mtdna then it might have been captives and not migration.

Mike Thomas said...

Sorry Marnie,
Can you clarify what you mean ?

I have no problem with people hypothesizing and throwing ideas around - that is what this forum is for.

But if we are going to pass of statements as firm convictions, there should be some supporting data, especially when it comes to the well researched Yamnaya burials. OTherwise its nothing but baseless speculation, with people throwing around terms like "Male domiance', 'exogamy', blah blah .

Grey said...

some examples from around the world including central Asia

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

Grey said...

@Mike Thomas

"when it comes to the well researched Yamnaya burials"

A comment upthread about those burials

"Samara experienced major population turnovers over time: early samples (>6000 years) belong primarily to mtDNA haplogroups U4 and U5, typical of European hunter-gatherers but later ones include haplogroups W, H, T, I, K, J."

mtdna

I'm saying if the turnover is solely in mtdna then it might not be migration; it might be captives.

Note the "if".

So if PIE started A/A (male/female) then maybe they turned themselves into A/B (male/female).

Marnie said...

@Mike

regarding "male dominance", "exogamy" etc. I cannot agree with you more that these terms are being thown around very loosely.

I think I've mentioned on this blog, and also on Dienekes' blog about five years ago, that my husband's parents are from a traditional village in the Mountains of Greek Macedonia.

I've gotten to know a lot about the traditions in this village. I've also read a lot and it appears that marriage patterns in Western Macedonia and Grevena have remained unchanged since the time of Philip II.

While the villages are patrilocal in terms of women going to the house of their husband's family at marriage, until about fifty years ago, women almost never married beyond their immediate villages. Every villager knows who is related to who on both the mother's and father's side out to about four generations. Women were not traded off like property and in fact, were often highly regarded for their thrift, medical knowledge, cooking ability, bravery, family loyalty, skill at weaving and embroidery, singing and dancing ability. These traditions are highly conserved in the Southern Balkans and could not have been passed on without a highly conserved partnership between men and women.

It's true that Philip II had many wives, but this was not the norm. Macedonia 2,300 was not monogamous in marriage tradition, but marriage customs were well established. Few men had more than two wives in their lifetime. You only need to read a little Macedonian history to see the kinds of disasters that befell the children of men with many wives to know that it wasn't optimal for men to have more than one or two wives.

So I think extreme "male dominance", at least in the Southern Balkans 2,300 years ago wasn't the norm at all.

I can't say what it was like in the rest of Europe.

Regarding my previous comment, all I'm trying to say is that in the timescales we're talking about, men could not have passed on their ydna without also passing on their autosomal DNA.

Marnie said...

Macedonia 2,300 *years ago*

Grey said...

@Marnie

"in the timescales we're talking about, men could not have passed on their ydna without also passing on their autosomal DNA."

Sure, when i say "could completely change" that's a bit of hyperbole only potentially relevant to the much longer time scales that might apply in steppe to India sequence (if that is what happened).

The relevance with the PIE (if this is what happened) would be their percentage of WHG/ANE/ENF would shift over time so bronze age IE coming off the steppe might have more ENF than the copper age ones because this process (if it happened) had been going on longer.


Nirjhar007 said...

Well I guess we will have some exciting times ahead this week!......

Nirjhar007 said...

@Grey
''Sure, when i say "could completely change" that's a bit of hyperbole only potentially relevant to the much longer time scales that might apply in steppe to India sequence (if that is what happened).''
There is no steppe to India Grey you guys will come to that understanding pretty soon....

Chad Rohlfsen said...

There had to be a good amount of male dominance. R1b went from 0-96% in some places. There's hardly a place in Western Europe that isn't over 50%. Much less of the mtDNA changed. We also know that we changed quite a bit autosomal wise. It wasn't by chance.

Marnie said...

@Grey,

Even at the most extreme periods of population shift, I'd be pretty wary to assume that male dominance was a big factor in reproduction. In war, in the instances where men are killed and only women are left, women are rarely taken as wives and instead are usually enslaved or turned into servants or worse.

Mike Thomas said...

Sure Chad,
The sheer dominance of R1b in western europe speaks for itself .
But I don't think we can rest this solely at the feet of patriarchical make society . The early Bronze Age did not have any major; dominating chiefdoms. Rather there were many petty Chiefs; who even within their own "tribe" ruled by consensus and gift-giving rather than an iron fist and monopoly of women

Grey said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_kidnapping#Central_Asia

"Approximately half of all Kyrgyz marriages include bride kidnapping"

"In Karakalpakstan, an autonomous region in Uzbekistan, nearly one fifth of all marriages are conducted by bride kidnapping"

Mike Thomas said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt said...

@ Ryu "I wonder how ppl are able to tell?" commented on by Grey

In the case of CHS and CEU, no clue, since I don't know about the mechanisms - family history might come up I guess, or people might be assortatively mating for social groups which are proxies for the ancestral substructure (people with Germans ancestry tend to go to this church, people with British ancestry tend to another, etc.).

For the cases where specific classes of genes are discussed-

For ASW it would involve "skin color and facial morphology" I presume to some extent at least.

While for European ancestry in MXL, it may necessarily not actually involve pairing up differently (although clearly that happens), rather than that beyond that some couples who do pair up just find that they are more fertile and so stay together and have more children, as the specific genes involved in fertilization tend to be overrepresented as an indicator they may be driving the assortative pattern. The people may not "tell" on a conscious or unconscious level.
This is a lot to be trying to pull out an abstract though.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Chad

Just be clear about what I'm actually saying, I do not disagree that the genomes >6kya were most likely from neolithic cultures. Khvalynsk and Samara were eneolithic. What I disagree with is the assertion that ENF ancestry appeared in Yamnaya due the introduction of neolithic technologies, because neolithic technologies, even copper, were well known 1000s of years before Yamnaya in its direct anttecedents in Samara and Khvalynsk, and a replacement of ~50% of the genome over a few hundred years suggests something far more substantial than the introduction of a technology they already had for 1000s of years. Or introduction of new economic model, or new social structures, or etc. etc.

If there were different genomes in the same area, e.g. autosomally HG cultures and ENF cultures at the same time, Reich would have said so, but we find no mention of it.

P.s. thanks for your decision to go! I am a poor college student in a foreign land, so no support on that front, apologies. On the other hand, I also have a friend who *might* be going for the Reich talk!

@ Matt
Thank you for the explanation. Makes sense.

On another front, I would like to caution against the idea that HGs or neol agris were so rational as to see a way out of long-term climactic threats to their subsistence strategies. There is a tendency to apply 'choice' or 'agency' to entire societies as though people are rational actors with perfect information and perfect collective decision-making, when that is almost never the case, any more than Americans 'chose' to subject themselves to globalisation, or Liberians 'chose' to have a bad healthcare system, or Indians 'chose' to perpetuate caste, or Republicans 'chose' to get hijacked by the tea party. Well, that is how most social scientists think of it at least.

Because in most societies there is a 'proper', socially sanctioned way to do things which promotes one's social status, humans in traditional societies tend to be extremely conservative, to the point of pursuing goals that are obviously counterproductive, e.g. Easter islanders expending so much wood on the building of statues competitively until their island became almost uninhabitable, and this happens all the time. Researchers like Niall Ferguson or Victor Lieberman tend to see most social or cultural or even technological innovation before the 16th century as forced by conditions in a somewhat deterministic way, e.g. military or social competition, or ecological pressures. So it just doesn't seem likely to me that a tribe goes an includes a person from what they no doubt regarded as an outgroup because it was expedient, if they had no cultural precedents for doing so.

Perhaps there was a collapse in social or cultural order in the neol societies after climate change akin to that in the Maya, that forced a great deal of social chaos and flexibility and innovation on an unprecedented level, and the new mixed societies that expanded after were the first to stumble upon subsistence strategies that worked in the new climate.

This type of collapse-cum-mixture-cum-innovation scenario was how e.g. the first Russian polities were born.

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie

From my readings, there are many ways in which a small migration might cause a massively disproportionate impact in aDNA.

One is elite dominance. In almost all ancient societies except to some extent in east asia after the 14-15th cents and for a brief period in the Roman Empire, the modern strategy to produce children with high social status, which is to have few children and invest a lot, was not permitted culturally or was just not possible, so both elites and the nonelites had large numbers of kids, of which most died. The differential death rate amongst the rich and poor led to children of the elite surviving much more often in places like medieval scand, norman elites in england, China and Japan, etc. etc. The best place to look for this is Gregory Clark, but he's not the only one who reached this conc.

This seems to be a mechanism wherever there was inequality, so we have a potential explanation for why ppl in Madagascar are 50% Austronesian despite there being at most a boatload, <30 of them that arrived from haploid stats. Similarly for pops like CHS, or the ~70-80% Tai ancestry figure for Tais despite their migration being in the last thousand years only and the agricultural khmers already living there. Or the figures for Arab ancestry as well.

The other way is for incessant raiding to make the environment much more hostile, e.g. the Comanche and american settlers, the Huns and the chinese in the Ordos, or italy/gaul during the volkerwanderung, resulting in virtual depopulation and social breakdown in the settled communities. We see this also in the intro of bronze dagger cultures into Korea, which resulted in a virtual termination of agri settlements for a few centuries.

I think the source you cited *might* support what is said, as the old autosome assoc with the previous YDNA is probably displaced by other autosomal flows assocc with new YDNA, instead of flows assoc with mtDNA.

@ Grey
There's probably no way of knowing this, but I highly doubt that was how it came about. The arabs were settled prior to their pastoralisation, and absorbed a lot of tech and culture from the med world before expanding. Same for altaics, who seem to have spun themselves off neol bronze societies in NE China. Same for the Tibetans, early semites, latins, mughals, manchus, macedonians, etc. etc. etc. This is a pattern for tribal/nomadic societies that was noted ever since Ibn Khaldun, where tribal societies at the edge of the urban cosmopolitan world take on the cult. and tech. of their more advanced neighbours in mixed economic aand social packages, and combine it with their 'primitive' but vigorous social organisation to undertake a wave of expansion, before being submerged by the 'decadent' and inegalitarian settled lifestyles of the socs they dominate, until another group comes in, in repeated cycles. Structural and ecological historians like John. F. Richards and Peter Turchin still buy into it.

In any case, there is no historical precedent for a HG society leaping from hunting and gathering straight into pastoralism as far as I know.

ryukendo kendow said...

As an add on to the previous comment, anyone who has read ethnographic studies of HGs in Siberia would know that they lived in conditions of extreme squalor. It was not an easy place to live, they had to spend literally half the year picking lice off each other's clothes cos they were so rarely removed.

Lol I think it was Chekov(?) who described the Gilyaks as smelling of rotting fish from several feet away when he made his famed trip to Siberia. Also, because plants foods are not so impt up north they, like the inuit, treated their women absolutely appallingly. Which doesn't seem to be the case for the PIEs, in any case.

There was probably quite a bit of cultural change and social reorg, and a lot of history in general, before the Yamnaya appeared from their patrilineal ancestors.

Marnie said...

@Grey

Re: bride knapping: perhaps the case now, on the Steppe. One fifth by the way, is what you quote above. Which means that 4/5th of marriages were not bride knappings.

If you look at Native American societies such as the Blackfoot, Ojibwe, Crow, Huron and Iroquois, which are dominanated by y-dna Q lineages, you can see here too that bride knapping was not very common.

Similarly to the pattern that Mike mentions above, these Native groups adhered to a pattern more like a highly traditional system of petty chiefdoms, with gift giving and tribal celebration to consolidate power.

Marnie said...

@ryu

"One is elite dominance. In almost all ancient societies except to some extent in east asia after the 14-15th cents and for a brief period in the Roman Empire, the modern strategy to produce children with high social status, which is to have few children and invest a lot, was not permitted culturally or was just not possible, so both elites and the nonelites had large numbers of kids, of which most died . . ."

What does this have to do with marriage patterns?

What does this have to do with men passing on their yDNA by not their aDNA?

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie
That comment was directed at both you and Mike, who was arguing that the migrations need be numerically big.

YDNA and aDNA seem quite well correlated.

As for polygamy, I think absolutely extreme rates of expansion for super-fathers in R1b and O3 testify to something very different, even if the stories from one part of the world sing a particular tune.

Even in safe and rather monog societies, the female preference for marrying up and even very slight rates of polyg can result in large dispro between YDNA and autosomal, e.g. Mexico, or even more extreme, Ecuador, in just a few hundred years. Rmb that correlation between status of fathers and sons is very high across a large range of soceities.

Grey said...

@Marnie

"One fifth by the way, is what you quote above. Which means that 4/5th of marriages were not bride knappings."

Sure, my point is for whatever numbers you plug into that model the adna percentage will gradually drop with each generation for as long as the process continues.

Originally 100% steppe ydna, adna and mtdna might over time become 100% steppe ydna but only 90% steppe adna and mtdna etc or lower depending on how many generations the process went on for.

Grey said...

@Ryu

"but I highly doubt that was how it came about"

I'm not suggesting it did really. I'm just pointing out that some of the various possibilities could be subject to a process of elimination with enough data.

1) Farmer migration onto the steppe:
this should involve both farmer ydna and mtdna

1a) if early burials did have both farmer ydna and mtdna and later ones did also then that might imply equal status

1b) if early burials had both but later ones only had mtdna that might imply the farmer migrants were lower status - maybe artisans like the ones that went to work for Ghenghis Khan

2) Patrilocality and bride-swapping:
in this case you wouldn't expect to see an equal increase in ydna (and maybe also implies the steppe people suddenly had something to trade e.g. horses)

2a) if it was mutual bride-swapping then you'd expect to see steppe mtdna increase among their neighbors

2b) if it was bride-trading you might see an imbalance in mtdna flow between the two groups.

3) Raiding and Captives:
in this case you'd expect to see a large imbalance in mtdna flow between the two groups

#

So ydna would show (imo) if the change on the steppe was a full migration or just some form of bride exchange.

If the steppe change turned out to be only or mainly mtdna then mtdna from the neighbors might show how balanced it was.

If it was balanced then that might imply peaceful coexistence.

If it was imbalanced it might imply either a trade or raid imbalance.

Grey said...

Just in case I'm not being clear about the adna.

Raiding population A
Raided population B

1st generation A male
100% A ydna
100% A adna
100% A mtdna

kidnapped (or traded or swapped) B female

2nd generation A male
100% A ydna
50% A adna & 50% B adna
100% B mtdna

kidnapped (or traded or swapped) B female

3nd generation A male
100% A ydna
25% A adna & 75% B adna
100% B mtdna

kidnapped (or traded or swapped) B female

4th generation A male
100% A ydna
12.5% A adna & 87.5% B adna
100% B mtdna

etc

Grey said...

@Ryu

"In any case, there is no historical precedent for a HG society leaping from hunting and gathering straight into pastoralism as far as I know."

Well there is clear historical precedent of HGs being taught pastoralism along the leading edge of expanding farmers.

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

There is also lots of evidence of farmer captives being taken by HGs along a farmer / HG border.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Captives_of_Native_Americans

In these more recent cases the farmer border was rapidly advancing but what if the border was fixed for a thousand years like it was in some regions during the neolithic?

Could/would the HGs have adopted a hybrid HG&Herding culture similar to Ertobolle?

#

In regions where farming was temporarily impossible at some time in the past then if the HGs in that region didn't make this HG -> Herder transition then eventually farmers would have adapted to that region and farmer dna would have spread to those regions.

(both male and female dna)

So if HGs hadn't made this transition pretty much everywhere along the edge of the first farmer's expansion then pretty much everywhere would be the same farmer dna except where farming is still impossible today.

So it seems to me dna is showing this kind of transition is logically certain to have taken place in many regions in the neolithic followed by a local reflux of HG dna as their population expanded as otherwise everywhere - except regions where farming is still impossible - would be farmer dna.

Marnie said...

@Grey

Here's my calculation of the same thing:

pop1: Generation 1 (population A1M, and population A1F):

100 males
100 females
100% autosomes of pop1

pop2: Generation 2, A2M+A2F (population A2M, older males marrying into population A2F):

20 males (A2M)
100 females (A2F)
100% autosomes of pop1
100% ynda of pop1

pop3: Generation 2, A2M+B2F (population A2M, younger males marrying into an out group of females, B2F)

80 males (A2M)
80 females (B2F)
50% autosomes of pop1
100% ynda of pop1

Regarding your statement:

"so average A adna and mtdna goes down while A ydna remains the same"

aDNA only goes down in pop3 but not in pop2.

Pop3 pattern of men marrying out into B type population likely to reach a point of equilibrium at some point. Some of the pop3 population would eventually marry back into pop2 population.

Furthermore, what about pop3 B2M men? I doubt that they would have aimlessly allowed their daughters, sisters and wives to be haplessly married off into the A population without some pushback.

I'm not saying that this didn't happen (pop A men marrying into pop B), but I don't think it happened on the short time scales that people are talking about on this blog. And pop A men would have had to have been a highly coordinated bunch to accomplish it, not a gaggle of hapless wife stealers.

Regarding "kidnapped, traded or swapped" ?

The historical record of Western Europe does not reflect a lot of trading of women as chattel.

Marnie said...

@Grey

Regarding the third and forth generation, again, the idea of men continuously marrying out, generation after generation, at the rate you are suggesting, is unlikely, for the following reasons:

- Men likely did not marry "out" at an 80% rate.

- Men who married "out" likely did not consistently marry into a population to which there were completely unrelated.

- Many men were killed in battle before reproducing at all.

- Men in the out group (population B) would probably also have married back into population A.

Arch Hades said...

This study better include genome wide analysis or it will be a total disappointment. Mitochondrial lineages are so much more static and boring than Y chromosomes they provide little information about population migrations IMO. Not to mention they can be misleading and provide little information about overall genetic structure.

Grey said...

@Marnie

"aDNA only goes down in pop3 but not in pop2."

Yes unless the high status males in pop2 then go on to marry the daughters of pop3.

.

"Pop3 pattern of men marrying out into B type population likely to reach a point of equilibrium at some point."

Yes.

.

"Furthermore, what about pop3 B2M men? I doubt that they would have aimlessly allowed their daughters, sisters and wives to be haplessly married off into the A population without some pushback."

Yes, this process would require a situation where the A population had a long lasting raiding advantage and a surplus of unmarried males e.g. viking ships and Irish captives to Iceland.

In which case the B population would have to either accept it or move away or build fortified hill villages and if they didn't live on fortifiable terrain the choices would be accept it or move away. I think a lot of them would move away.

.

"I don't think it happened on the short time scales that people are talking about on this blog."

I agree the likelihood is proportional to the time scales.

.

"Regarding the third and forth generation, again, the idea of men continuously marrying out, generation after generation, at the rate you are suggesting, is unlikely, for the following reasons:"

I agree. I think this process is most likely on the border as unmarried males moved to where they could get wives.

And if the process led to the raided population moving away then it might lead to a conveyor belt effect.

stage 1) unmarried males on the border raid settled neighbors for wives creating a new 50% autosomal population

stage 2) raided population moves away and is replaced by the raider population

stage 3) unmarried males on the new border raid their new neighbors for wives creating a new 25% autosomal population

stage 4) raided population moves away

rinse and repeat

so in theory, at the limit it's
100%
50%
25%
12%
6%
3%
1.5%
< 1%
about 7-ish generations to go from 100% autosomal to < 1% autosomal and yet still 100% ydna

I make no claim how likely that is; I'm just suggesting the possibility in case it squares some dna circles.

Marnie said...

@Grey

That's a lot of "ifs".

I think your calculations are useful for calculating a hypothetical upper bound for the timeline of population displacement. Still, the real scenario is probably a lot more complex (which of course, I know you are also aware of.)

:)

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Grey

But Grey, the native americans were not Hunter-gatherers.

Even the great nomadic civs of the plains occurred after powerful settled civs had already arisen there not long before, after which european disease which preceded the europeans themselves which lowered pop dens, plus horses, initiated the pastoralisation process.

And I'm not sure about the picture you're posting, but it seems like a rather artificial situation to me? Lol

It seems like the Eterbolle were HGs through and through with no herding. The swifterbank seem like they were just agris.

I'm just pointing out that all the great nomadic civs, incl. the IEs, the nomad asians of the Eastern Steppe, nomads in ME+NAf, the Kushan Torcharians, etc were all sedentaralised before pastoralisation. The only group that developed something 'resembling' pastoralism from a HG basis were some reindeer uralics, but that is a far cry from the tech packages in the rest of Eurasia and they didn't expand into the steppe at all.

Marnie said...

@ryu

"But Grey, the native americans were not Hunter-gatherers."

The "hunter-gatherer" vs "farmer" paradigm is not a useful paradigm to differentiate subsistence patterns among Native American.

Ryu, please see some recent references on this. You can't make a simplistic yeah or nay statement like that.

In fact, *some* Native Americans *were* strict hunter gatherers.

You've been making a lot of statements today about subsistence without substantiating your statements. I'd like to see you substantiate your statements with specifics.

Marnie said...

@ryu

"I'm just pointing out that all the great nomadic civs, incl. the IEs, the nomad asians of the Eastern Steppe, nomads in ME+NAf, the Kushan Torcharians, etc were all sedentaralised before pastoralisation. "

reference please!

ryukendo kendow said...

@ Marnie

I was not referring NAms in SW US. I was referring to NAms that 'took captives' in the E of the US, which, even if they did not practice intensive agriculture then, they did in periods shortly prior to european arrival in settlements supporting very high pop numbers.

I typically do not provide references, because I spend approx 15 min on comments here a day and if I did it would take hours on end. But you can fact-check me.

E.g. the Tibetans were not even able to live where they did until they got barley from the West. Then comes a period of settled pops, before yak domestication and herding, after which they got an empire with stretches at various times from bengal to the Tarim.

Nomadism did not exist as a cultural package on the eastern steppe until really late. The Hongshan were settled neol, the lower xiajiadian even had oracle bones, but the upper xiajiadian developed pastoralism of the type we see in the east even while relying heavily on agri in a transition. This has led some linguists, blench is amongst them I believe, to sugggest that Hongshan was altaic-speaking, which isn't so far-fetched when you count the number of language families that trace their origins to china in that period.

For the IEs, see the above discussion. For the arabs, look at the south arab kingdoms around the first centuries ce, they had some nice greco-roman style reliefs.

Even the first pastoralism in the southern levant developed in formerly neol societies.

Marnie said...

OK then.

Regarding Native Americans, and in general, the whole hunter-gatherer vs farmer paradigm is in question.

There are even cases where "farmers" reverted to hunting when their agricultural territories were encroached on from the West.

The Blackfoot seem to have been hunter-gatherers for the last 12,000 years.

Reference: Human Ecology of the Canadian Prairie Ecozone 11,000 to 300 BP, edited by B.A. Nicholson, 2011

Grey said...

@Marnie

"The "hunter-gatherer" vs "farmer" paradigm is not a useful paradigm to differentiate subsistence patterns among Native American."

I'm just using it as evidence of HGs taking farmer captives. It doesn't prove anything other than that.

What happened afterwards e.g. those captives herding rustled sheep for the HGs is 100% speculation on my part.

Grey said...

not sure that previous post was directed at the person or point i was making - never mind :)

.

actual point

@Ryu

"I'm just pointing out that all the great nomadic civs, incl. the IEs, the nomad asians of the Eastern Steppe, nomads in ME+NAf, the Kushan Torcharians, etc were all sedentaralised before pastoralisation."

I don't know enough to dispute that however my understanding is there were sedentary pottery using HGs along the west shore of the Black Sea before farming - if correct I assume this might have been because there was an abundance of food in the wetlands around the Black Sea?

.

I also wonder about another route to sedentary HGs: apples, pears, figs, dates, acorns.

G. Dekaen said...

I don't think it will surprise anyone to see that these Bronze Age Aegeans will likely be shifted to Sardinians and the Near East. We already know that the Bronze Age Bulgarian sample V2, 1100-1500BC is EEF-shifted compared to present-day Bulgarians. V2 scores 82.9% EEF, 7.8% WHG, 9.3% ANE compared to Bulgarians: 68.6% EEF, 20% WHG, 11.4% ANE. V2 likely acquired their WHG and ANE from Steppe and Forest-Steppe groups (Yamna, Corded, Fatyanovo-Balanovo, possibly Unetice) after 2000BC, so we can expect Aegeans who are even further south and from 2000-3000BC to be even more EEF shifted than V2. I doubt Bronze-Age Aegeans will have any ANE, and if so, it will be in the low single digits.

@Alberto

Actually, a paper just recently came out with mtDNA from the Neolithic all the way to the Bronze and Iron Ages for Bulgaria. That might give you a hint as to where/if ANE also entered via Anatolia in the Bronze-Age. Unfortunately, the paper is behind a pay-wall, although the mtDNA lineages are posted on the Eupedia forum, but alas, I am not a member; so, if anyone can access those results and list them, that would be GREATLY appreciated!
Here is the link to the Eupedia results:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/27578-Bronze-and-Iron-Age-mtDNA-from-Romania

" These movements of populations around the Bronze Age brought ANE into most of Europe, but also decreased the WHG ancestry in most of it. In many places quite dramatically."

It wasn't that dramatic of a decline in WHG. We have three Eneolithic samples that precede Yamna's alleged "expansion" and only CO1-Hungary shows a decline in WHG that's outside of the modern range, while in N. Italy, we see a large increase in WHG. Otzi had 28.7% WHG, N. Italians have from 32-36%. Gok2 had 49.8% WHG, Swedes have from 46-50% WHG. CO1 had 44.3% WHG, Hungarians have from 38-42% WHG. So the decline in WHG was far from dramatic.

G. Dekaen said...

@ Davidski

I disagree, there is some pretty strong evidence for a Bronze Age (mostly MBE) demic displacement in at least Hungary, if not many other parts of Europe, possibly implicated in the expansion of IE. Based on Patterson/Reich's remarks of Yamna being 50-50 EHG-Armenian, we can calculate that Yamna was approximately 40% NE, <42.8% WHG, >15.6% ANE (K8 Calc). Those are max. and min. figures for WHG and ANE because I used SHG as the EHG proxy, so it's likely EHGs - and hence Yamna - had less WHG and more ANE than the above, anyways, the point is that they give us the limits of Yamna's composition.

Now, we can look at the change of component proportions between CO1, 2700-2900BC and BR2, 1110-1270BC in order to identify what kind of components the incoming population had that mixed with CO1 to create BR2 and the ratio of the mixture. CO1 was 44.3% WHG, 55.7% NE while BR2 was 45.4% WHG, 44% NE, 9.6% ANE.

Using these figures, we can deduce that there was a minimum influx of 20% all the way to a max. of 90%. Within that range, the cumulative change came from (a) population(s) that was/were: 49.8-45.5% WHG, 4.2-42.7% NE, 48-10.7% ANE. If we assume that BR2 is simply the result of a single population movement from Yamna mixing with CO1 descendants, then the numbers simply do not match at all. NE is too low unless we assume >70% replacement at which point NE runs from 39-42.7% (close to the known 40% NE of Yamna). The next problem is that with a 70-90% influx of Yamna, Yamna would have to be between 45.9-46.1% WHG which is greater than its absolute max. of 42.8%. Furthermore, ANE would have to be from 10.7-13.7% which is lower than the absolute minimum Yamna could have had of 15.6%. Therefore, no combination of ratios of Yamna+CO1 mixture can give rise to BR2, which gives us two possibilities, both likely Bronze-Age (EBA/MBA):

1) there was a third (or more?) population involved that raised WHG (>50%), had zero-very low ANE (0-10%), and moderate amounts of NE(20-40% ?).
2) BR2 descends from a Bronze Age population influx with different component proportions from Yamna.

Lastly, judging from the K7 Calc. scores, we can also deduce that BR1 was far too "northern" (even more-so than BR2) to have descended from Yamna. To go from BR1 to modern-day Hungarians requires a Bronze Age displacement.

G. Dekaen said...

@Ryu
I think you're right that the "Caucasian" component that brought additional ANE to Yamna likely came after the Early Neolithic because the lineages from Dnieper-Donets, 5600-5000BC lack the most characteristic "Eastern Neolithic/ANE" markers: I, T1, R1, W. Instead, Dnieper-Donets seems to be an average Neolithic population (40% H, also U3) with considerable ANE admixture (20-30% or even more?) given the popularity of mtDNA Haplogroup C (30%). So, combined with the information from the abstract, DD and SS West of the Don were probably NE/WHG/ANE mixed as early as 5500BC, while people East of the Don (Samaran HGs) only became so after 4000BC. So, the influx of "Caucasian Neolithic" probably happened 4000-3500BC with the creation of Yamna ( Caucasian/Eastern Neolithic ANE + Sredny Stog (C-T related Neolithic culture with EHG/ANE substrate) = Yamna?). I don't see any reason to discount influence from European Neolithic in Yamna or Sredny Stog since we already see it in Dnieper-Donets.