Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DNA recovered from underwater British site may rewrite history of farming in Europe

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    There may not have been massive warfare. Sometimes an incoming population brings microbes that cause death from disease.

    I don't think there is any massive warfare from 2500 BC on the continent either. Instead, we have:

    1) ancient DNA that is R1b M269+ after 2500 BC

    2) no R1b M269+ before 2500 BC

    3) Indo-European languages originated, per linguists, in about 4000 to 4500 BC in either Anatolia or the Pontic Steppe. These languages largely replaced what had previously been in Europe previously. This is thought by most to have occurred in the 2500 BC+- several hundred year window of time.

    4) Introduction of bronze tools & weapons in about 2500 BC+- a few centuries

    5) Introduction of horses to Europe in about 2500 BC+- a few centuries. Horses were domesticated prior to 4000 BC & we know from horse DNA that they came from horses in the Pontic Steppe region.

    When you put this all together, it looks like something major did, in fact, happen. Some archaeologists insist that this happened through diffusion or mimicry.

    Remember also, that despite the overwhelming presence of R1b P311+ in Ireland & other places on the Atlantic fringe, most of these patrilines descend from just two men who lived in about 2900 BC -Mr. P312 & Mr. U106. There may not be much archaeological evidence of an invasion of Ireland in 2500 BC, but we certainly know that it happened; how else would the R1b P311 subclades have wound up there. To explore the opposite, I don't think the archaeological record records a massive invasion from Ireland to the Continent either.

    If R1b had an ancient origin in western Europe, we would expect to see a lot more diversity; y-str data would cluster. If we choose to ignore the R1b data from the Pontic Steppe, Balkans, Anatolia, etc., we could construct an alternative hypothesis that says that R1b was in western Europe since the Mesolithic or Paleolithic and suffered a near extinction event in ca 2500 BC, of which only U106, P312 & a few others survived.

    If one looks at the I1 subclade, which has a deep, ancient, uncontested presence in Europe and nowhere else, we see that I1 did incur a near extinction event in about 2500 BC. All branches of I1 descend from one man who lived in about 2500 BC (the sole survivor of something), and I1 originated prior to 25,000 BC. Several subclades of G2a (per YFull) show the same sort of population bottleneck.

    The steppe hypothesis for R1b M269+ is simply the most parsimonious explanation for all of this. However, if R1b L23+ is found in western Europe that dates to prior to 4000 BC, or if R1b M269+ is found in western Europe that dates to prior to 7000 BC, I will change my perspective entirely.

    Timothy Peterman

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
      There may not have been massive warfare. Sometimes an incoming population brings microbes that cause death from disease.

      I don't think there is any massive warfare from 2500 BC on the continent either. Instead, we have:

      1) ancient DNA that is R1b M269+ after 2500 BC

      2) no R1b M269+ before 2500 BC

      3) Indo-European languages originated, per linguists, in about 4000 to 4500 BC in either Anatolia or the Pontic Steppe. These languages largely replaced what had previously been in Europe previously. This is thought by most to have occurred in the 2500 BC+- several hundred year window of time.

      4) Introduction of bronze tools & weapons in about 2500 BC+- a few centuries

      5) Introduction of horses to Europe in about 2500 BC+- a few centuries. Horses were domesticated prior to 4000 BC & we know from horse DNA that they came from horses in the Pontic Steppe region.

      When you put this all together, it looks like something major did, in fact, happen. Some archaeologists insist that this happened through diffusion or mimicry.

      Remember also, that despite the overwhelming presence of R1b P311+ in Ireland & other places on the Atlantic fringe, most of these patrilines descend from just two men who lived in about 2900 BC -Mr. P312 & Mr. U106. There may not be much archaeological evidence of an invasion of Ireland in 2500 BC, but we certainly know that it happened; how else would the R1b P311 subclades have wound up there. To explore the opposite, I don't think the archaeological record records a massive invasion from Ireland to the Continent either.

      If R1b had an ancient origin in western Europe, we would expect to see a lot more diversity; y-str data would cluster. If we choose to ignore the R1b data from the Pontic Steppe, Balkans, Anatolia, etc., we could construct an alternative hypothesis that says that R1b was in western Europe since the Mesolithic or Paleolithic and suffered a near extinction event in ca 2500 BC, of which only U106, P312 & a few others survived.

      If one looks at the I1 subclade, which has a deep, ancient, uncontested presence in Europe and nowhere else, we see that I1 did incur a near extinction event in about 2500 BC. All branches of I1 descend from one man who lived in about 2500 BC (the sole survivor of something), and I1 originated prior to 25,000 BC. Several subclades of G2a (per YFull) show the same sort of population bottleneck.

      The steppe hypothesis for R1b M269+ is simply the most parsimonious explanation for all of this. However, if R1b L23+ is found in western Europe that dates to prior to 4000 BC, or if R1b M269+ is found in western Europe that dates to prior to 7000 BC, I will change my perspective entirely.

      Timothy Peterman
      The age of U106 and P312 is only an estimated guess.

      It is though that a small number of men with arsenic/copper working skills arrived in Ireland from the Languedoc region of France. Ross Island is the oldest mine in Ireland which was worked in 2,500 BC.

      Comment


      • #18
        It is also plausible that the men with horses & bronze implements & skill sets tended to outbreed their Neolithic contemporaries. The whole transformation may have been peaceful. Indigenous males, recognizing both the promise and the terror that horses & bronze implements offered, may have done everything possible to make sure that their daughters married these newcomers. Better to have allies among the technologically advanced than enemies.

        I'm sure that there have been studies about what happens when two different populations meet and intermingle, especially when one of them is a lot more advanced than the other.

        My understanding is that the mitochondrial haplogroups didn't incur the types of population bottlenecks I described previously. So female demography was largely unaffected by the coming of the bronze age.

        Timothy Peterman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
          It sounds like you're not aware that the latest scientific evidence available to population geneticists indicates that haplogroup P, "father" of Q and R originated deep within East Asia. This study - http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v...g2014106a.html - which was published last year reports on new knowledge about the phylogeny of Haplogroup K.

          The new phylogeny indicates that all the subclades of K2b1 are found today in East Asia and Australia. However, K2b2, otherwise known as haplogroup P and it subclades, is not mainly found among modern East Asian populations. The abstract notes, "Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 and P295 point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q."

          So, the grandfather (K) and father (P) of haplogroup R are distinctly Asian, in fact East Asian, not European. Even Mal'ta boy, whose 24,000 year old remains were tested and found to be R1, lived in eastern Siberia, near Mongolia.

          This hardly sounds to me like the Asian "race" "remained within there [sic] original geographical ancient location." Humans have been migrating since they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago. Attempts to deny this and insist that the modern day population of any geographical area has been there forever is just folly.
          MMaddi,

          Thank you for the link and I'm sure the "pay for article" will make some pocket change for the authors.

          You have a very strong belief that it is a "fact" or perhaps "law" instead of "theory" that all humans have been migrating since they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago.

          I myself, do not believe the "Coming out of Africa theory" explains the different races in all the different geographical areas as neatly as your pose.

          I do understand why some individuals absolutely require a ape to human, coming out of Africa theory to be absolutely correct, and as you stated "just folly to oppose".

          I do find it interesting the concept, perhaps "theory"? that Caucasians were once Asian and I guess before that Africans.

          As time past, we will see if your and companions "theory" holds up as new evidence is discovered.

          I still believe there is much to learn and much to discover.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post

            I'm sure that there have been studies about what happens when two different populations meet and intermingle, especially when one of them is a lot more advanced than the other.

            Timothy Peterman
            I don't know if there's such a study, but it's well-known that Hispanics in the Americas show what happens in the scenario you put forward.

            The Spanish colonists arrived in the New World post-1492 as a civilization that possessed more powerful technology than the Native American cultures. We can see what happened from the history books.

            A relatively small military force of Spanish colonists was able to conquer the Native American populations and impose colonial rule from Spain that lasted until the 19th century. Did they wipe out the Native American population as part of this process?

            No, they didn't or else we wouldn't see any significant Native American haplogroups among Hispanics today. I've heard one estimate that about 80% of Hispanic men have a European yDNA haplogroup and the remaining 20% have a Native American haplogroup. For mtDNA haplogroups, it's roughly the opposite. Roughly 80% of Hispanic men and women have a Native American haplogroup and most of the rest have a European haplogroup, with a small number having an African haplogroup from female African slave ancestors.

            This shows what happens when one civilization with technological advances moves into another civilization's territory. Even though the number of the invading males may be smaller, they can become dominant. Especially if the territory they invade is far from their homeland and they don't bring many women along, they will marry women who are native to the area. As long as they treat the women well, the invaders will be seen as attractive for forming families.

            In this situation, one sees how eventually the descendants of the invading (or perhaps a better term is intrusive) men will come to dominate the society and outnumber the descendants of the men native to the territory. I think this is what happened in Bronze Age Europe with R1b men, especially as ancient European DNA from before the Bronze Age indicates that the majority yDNA haplogroup of European men was G2, not R1b. It seems most likely that R1b men from outside Europe replaced G2 native Europeans during the Bronze Age.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by K. L. Adams View Post
              MMaddi,

              Thank you for the link and I'm sure the "pay for article" will make some pocket change for the authors.

              You have a very strong belief that it is a "fact" or perhaps "law" instead of "theory" that all humans have been migrating since they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago.

              I myself, do not believe the "Coming out of Africa theory" explains the different races in all the different geographical areas as neatly as your pose.

              I do understand why some individuals absolutely require a ape to human, coming out of Africa theory to be absolutely correct, and as you stated "just folly to oppose".

              I do find it interesting the concept, perhaps "theory"? that Caucasians were once Asian and I guess before that Africans.

              As time past, we will see if your and companions "theory" holds up as new evidence is discovered.

              I still believe there is much to learn and much to discover.
              Well, we'll see.

              Right now all the evidence points to Haplogroup P and its sons Q and R having an origin in Asia, from Central to East Asia. The fact that Q is dominant among native populations in the Americas and R is dominant among European men certainly must make one wonder how they arrived in their present day areas of dominance if they didn't migrate!

              Of course, there are some people, like the OP of this thread, who can only feel secure in their self-identity when they can believe (even against all the evidence) that migration and population replacement have nothing to do with their ancestors. It sounds like you are of like mind.

              However, I can tell you that merely asserting your belief is not very convincing. You'll have to explain to us, based on some physical evidence from ancient DNA, how it is that haplogroup R originated in Europe when 24,000 years ago Mal'ta boy (R1) lived in eastern Siberia and, before that, haplogroup P, the father of R, seems to have lived at least as far east, if not farther. At a certain point, reason should take precedence over mere belief that has no evidence to back it up.
              Last edited by MMaddi; 1 March 2015, 12:06 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by MMaddi View Post


                However, I can tell you that merely asserting your belief is not very convincing. You'll have to explain to us, based on some physical evidence from ancient DNA, how it is that haplogroup R originated in Europe when 24,000 years ago Mal'ta boy (R1) lived in eastern Siberia and, before that, haplogroup P, the father of R, seems to have lived at least as far east, if not farther. At a certain point, reason should take precedence over mere belief that has no evidence to back it up.

                Mal'ta boy F999914 (Gedmatch)
                Population
                ANE 49.08%
                ASE 11.22%
                WHG-UHG 33.58%
                East_Eurasian 1.54%
                West_African -
                East_African 4.58%
                ENF -


                Most Irish people are 64% WHG. I suppose someone will suggest that western European hunter gatherer autosomal dna originated in Siberia.

                Comment


                • #23
                  The Neolithic farmers (EEF) spread across Europe before the Siberian hunters (EHG) who arrived on the eastern fringes of Europe c. 7000 BC. But there were other hunters in Europe long before. They began to arrive about 46,000 years ago. Their descendants are labelled WHG by Haak 2015 and Lazaridis 2014.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                    Mal'ta boy F999914 (Gedmatch)
                    Population
                    ANE 49.08%
                    ASE 11.22%
                    WHG-UHG 33.58%
                    East_Eurasian 1.54%
                    West_African -
                    East_African 4.58%
                    ENF -


                    Most Irish people are 64% WHG. I suppose someone will suggest that western European hunter gatherer autosomal dna originated in Siberia.
                    Perhaps that's the case. Maybe in the future ancient DNA results will show that or maybe that won't be what we find.

                    But the other thing to consider is that your yDNA haplogroup represents just one line in your tree. That line represents a declining percentage of your total ancestry as you go back each generation.

                    If we assume 30 years/generation, that means 4,500 years ago was 150 generations ago. Your paternal line ancestor just at the level of ggg-grandparents (5 generations ago) was just one of 32 ancestors in that generation, about 3%. I won't do the math, but your paternal line ancestor 150 generations ago represents an infintesimal percentage of your ancestors in that generation, even taking pedigree collapse into account.

                    My point is that you're trying to equate yDNA haplogroup (a small percentage of your ancient ancestors) with the WHG component of your autosomal make-up, which deals with all your lines of ancestry. It's quite possible that since the R haplogroup spent its youth, over 20,000 years ago, in Central or even East Asia, that WHG was actually in western Europe during that time period, but that descendants of haplogroup R (R1b) made their way to western Europe and mixed with a WHG population.

                    That would easily explain how most Irish are majority WHG but have a haplogroup that was in Siberia over 20,000 years ago. Seems like a good explanation to me.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                      Perhaps that's the case. Maybe in the future ancient DNA results will show that or maybe that won't be what we find.

                      But the other thing to consider is that your yDNA haplogroup represents just one line in your tree. That line represents a declining percentage of your total ancestry as you go back each generation.

                      If we assume 30 years/generation, that means 4,500 years ago was 150 generations ago. Your paternal line ancestor just at the level of ggg-grandparents (5 generations ago) was just one of 32 ancestors in that generation, about 3%. I won't do the math, but your paternal line ancestor 150 generations ago represents an infintesimal percentage of your ancestors in that generation, even taking pedigree collapse into account.

                      My point is that you're trying to equate yDNA haplogroup (a small percentage of your ancient ancestors) with the WHG component of your autosomal make-up, which deals with all your lines of ancestry. It's quite possible that since the R haplogroup spent its youth, over 20,000 years ago, in Central or even East Asia, that WHG was actually in western Europe during that time period, but that descendants of haplogroup R (R1b) made their way to western Europe and mixed with a WHG population.

                      That would easily explain how most Irish are majority WHG but have a haplogroup that was in Siberia over 20,000 years ago. Seems like a good explanation to me.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Another notable point that I've made to 1798 in another thread is that WHG doesn't specifically mean Atlantic fringe. I posted a map from eupedia that shows the distribution of WHG & it appears to be heaviest in northern Europe and Russia.

                        I know that eupedia is considered controversial by some, but some of their maps are really good.

                        Timothy Peterman

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                          Perhaps that's the case. Maybe in the future ancient DNA results will show that or maybe that won't be what we find.
                          It is unfortunate that many geographical areas do not include caves, ancient swamps, bogs, and other proper environments that is conducive to preserve ancient DNA.

                          As an example, I live in the central gulf states of the U.S.A and we have very little ancient fossils of animals or humans.

                          Go further to the Southeast in Florida and they have sinkholes and swamps that preserved ancient fossils of Saber-Toothed cats, Mastodons and Mammoths,Giant Ground Sloth and list goes on. No Dinosaur bones are found in that part of Florida because was underwater at the time they lived.

                          So, depending on the environment and geological conditions, it will determine the quantity ancient DNA specimens discovered or if any ancient DNA will ever be discovered within a geographical area.

                          Just a thought.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by MMaddi View Post
                            Perhaps that's the case. Maybe in the future ancient DNA results will show that or maybe that won't be what we find.

                            But the other thing to consider is that your yDNA haplogroup represents just one line in your tree. That line represents a declining percentage of your total ancestry as you go back each generation.

                            If we assume 30 years/generation, that means 4,500 years ago was 150 generations ago. Your paternal line ancestor just at the level of ggg-grandparents (5 generations ago) was just one of 32 ancestors in that generation, about 3%. I won't do the math, but your paternal line ancestor 150 generations ago represents an infintesimal percentage of your ancestors in that generation, even taking pedigree collapse into account.

                            My point is that you're trying to equate yDNA haplogroup (a small percentage of your ancient ancestors) with the WHG component of your autosomal make-up, which deals with all your lines of ancestry. It's quite possible that since the R haplogroup spent its youth, over 20,000 years ago, in Central or even East Asia, that WHG was actually in western Europe during that time period, but that descendants of haplogroup R (R1b) made their way to western Europe and mixed with a WHG population.

                            That would easily explain how most Irish are majority WHG but have a haplogroup that was in Siberia over 20,000 years ago. Seems like a good explanation to me.
                            This new study suggests that ANE was brought from the Steppe with R1b but as Motala 12 shows ANE was already in western Europe 8000 ybp.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by K. L. Adams View Post
                              MMaddi,

                              Thank you for the link and I'm sure the "pay for article" will make some pocket change for the authors.

                              You have a very strong belief that it is a "fact" or perhaps "law" instead of "theory" that all humans have been migrating since they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago.

                              I myself, do not believe the "Coming out of Africa theory" explains the different races in all the different geographical areas as neatly as your pose.

                              I do understand why some individuals absolutely require a ape to human, coming out of Africa theory to be absolutely correct, and as you stated "just folly to oppose".

                              I do find it interesting the concept, perhaps "theory"? that Caucasians were once Asian and I guess before that Africans.

                              As time past, we will see if your and companions "theory" holds up as new evidence is discovered.

                              I still believe there is much to learn and much to discover.
                              This text makes it quite clear that you have no clue about the scientific process.
                              1)I don't know if Nature magazine is more generous, but in general the authors of peer reviewed articles doesn't see a penny for their published articles.

                              2) Despite the common believe, in the context of science the term 'theory' doesn't refer to 'wild speculation abroad any evidence'. Instead it's the opposite. Based on empirical evidence, a set rules is build, which tries to explains the facts by logic deduction and give predictions, which can be falsified when new facts shows up. Depending on the scientific discipline this can be done in a more or less rigorous way.
                              Last edited by Mpawe; 2 March 2015, 02:45 AM. Reason: typo

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X