tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1743690199400750871..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Neolithic expansions: how the European foragers were assimilatedDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43758556597234092402012-04-01T04:57:15.793+03:002012-04-01T04:57:15.793+03:00Dienkes (or anyone); is there as much of a debate ...Dienkes (or anyone); is there as much of a debate as to how to date mtDNA (eg compared to the various proposed methods for dating Y Hg STRs) ?Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07166839601638241857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-57849864460017014832012-03-19T00:29:42.379+02:002012-03-19T00:29:42.379+02:00Here is something that does not make much sense ei...Here is something that does not make much sense either regarding a Paleolithic/Mesolithic presence of mtDNA haplogroup H in Europe. If H was present during those periods then why did it not expand into Central and Northern Europe after the ice sheets melted like U4 and U5 appear to have done? I highly doubt that H would have just stayed behind in the south and not moved at all? That really does not make much sense.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88341934467862250972012-03-19T00:19:43.973+02:002012-03-19T00:19:43.973+02:00mr truth I never said that blondism appeared becau...mr truth I never said that blondism appeared because of snow<br /><br />the light hair and light eye mutations arose amongst caucasoids of the mideast but the ratio of blondism increased when those caucasoids migrated northwards by a mechanism of natural selection because predators ate much of the darkhaired mideastern caucasoid migrants to northern and eastern europe wich contrary to gulf stream affected western europe could see months with snowy grounds and indeed there are more blonds in ukraine than same latitude france<br /><br />as for mongoloids they were not affected by light hair light eye mutation wich was born in neareast after the birth of the caucasoid race therecrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232905237272530506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90642827923961839672012-03-18T17:42:48.944+02:002012-03-18T17:42:48.944+02:00@ libya
And what matters that they are mongoloid ...@ libya<br /><br />And what matters that they are mongoloid ? According to your theory blondism appeared because of the snow, then why it hasn't appeared in mongoloids such as Siberians or Eskimo, given they live in the same conditions ?truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08622344688109770244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17410807055630827212012-03-18T06:01:30.414+02:002012-03-18T06:01:30.414+02:00@truth
mr truth, it's simply because Eskimos a...@truth<br />mr truth, it's simply because Eskimos are not caucasoids to begin with<br /><br />As you know light eye and light hair mutation arose amongst caucasoids somwhere around iran-armenia-anatolia-caucasus and from there expanded northwards and eastwards southwards and westwards, Eskimos on the other hand are not Caucasoidscrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232905237272530506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34741747132276830812012-03-17T22:25:33.737+02:002012-03-17T22:25:33.737+02:00@libyia
"in the snowy grounds of eastern and...@libyia<br /><br /><i>"in the snowy grounds of eastern and northeastern europe there was an increase of the ratio of the blond people because darkhaired people were an easy target on the snowy grounds of eastern and northern europe"</i><br /><br />Explain then why Siberian tribes or Eskimos are not blonde. Your theory doesn't make any sense.truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08622344688109770244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61626537739330701362012-03-17T20:11:12.134+02:002012-03-17T20:11:12.134+02:00@wagg,
Go ahead and laugh it up bud. Like I said ...@wagg,<br /><br />Go ahead and laugh it up bud. Like I said some people (such as yourself) will continue to believe in unreliable results. <br /><br />We need to wait and see what new testing comes out of southern Europe before any firm conclusions can be drawn about which haplogroups were present there during the Mesolithic.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27314343534539471042012-03-17T15:57:21.612+02:002012-03-17T15:57:21.612+02:00mr Mark D
of course Irishmen dont look middleaster...mr Mark D<br />of course Irishmen dont look middleastern nor do they look Greeks<br /><br />Middleasterners lack the northeuropean component wich evolved out of the westasian component somewhere around the caucasus<br /><br />Also by a mechanism of natural selection, in the snowy grounds of eastern and northeastern europe there was an increase of the ratio of the blond people because darkhaired people were an easy target on the snowy grounds of eastern and northern europe<br /><br />However before Anglosaxons came to England I suspect that the percentage of blonde people in britain was lower<br /><br />This saying ,many middleasterners from levant anatolia armenia iran and caucasus could pass as southern europeans see for example recep ardogan, bashar asad, ramazan kadirov, mohamed khaminei, mohsen makhmalbaf, serj sarkisian, dukashvili th georgian, saliman of lebanon and netanyahu of israelcrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01232905237272530506noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-91865087051985886922012-03-17T12:09:05.287+02:002012-03-17T12:09:05.287+02:00Even in the historical period we know that there w...<i>Even in the historical period we know that there were large scale migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in Europe.</i><br /><br />Gail,<br /><br />But we also know that these migrations often had little effect on the genetic makeup of the populations; you can include Hungary, the UK, and others on that list. Outside of the core area of Slavic expansion, e.g., in western and northern Poland and in the Baltics, at most 5% to 10% of R1a subgroups can be attributed to recent (1,500 ya) migration. The remainder likely has been there for over 4,000 years.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4089714379020181112012-03-17T11:36:42.270+02:002012-03-17T11:36:42.270+02:00"Apparently scientists only really started ta...<i>"Apparently scientists only really started taking extreme precautions to avoid contamination of ancient bones back in 2009. <b>So anything before that can be seen as fairly irrelevant.</b>"</i> <br /><br />Hilarious. Somehow the old testings found diverse gene pools in their tests. But we should throw everything before 2009 away. Right... <br /><br />In the ancient testings they did try to avoid contamination and sometimes they checked the hgs' testers to evaluate the results and the risk of contamination. <br /><br /><i>"so far the only mtDNA haplogroups that are conifrmed as being Paleolithic/Mesolithic in origin in Europe are U2, U4 and U5"</i> <br /><br />The problem being that we have still no data from the most populated and interesting European area yet (south (beside caramelli 2005), south-east and south-west of Europe). <br /><br />Caramelli 2005 found no U, instead they found some R0 and N* (I'll let aside some vaguer stuff like Sungir's DNA (Russia, maybe as old as 28,000 BCE) that is apparently strikingly similar to HV4a2, H17'27 or H1j (IIRC) but that could still possibly be something else IIRC - the testing was not precise enough to be sure).wagghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13582568982610797947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59865773715920609102012-03-16T18:56:58.659+02:002012-03-16T18:56:58.659+02:00"It just seems to me that their analyses make...<i>"It just seems to me that their analyses make more sense, that a significant portion of the Celtic West trace their ancestry to before any Neolithic invasion, if not before the LGM." </i><br /><br />As in the case of mtDNA H, the theory that y-DNA R1b was the dominant mesolithic haplogroup in Europe was based entirely on it's current distribution in Europe. This theory requires that we assume people have never migrated in significant numbers to already populated areas, which we know to be a flawed assumption. Even in the historical period we know that there were large scale migrations of Germanic and Slavic peoples in Europe. So the original assumptions by Sykes et al. were really just poor scholarship - they jumped to an unsupported conclusion without considering any alternate theories.<br /><br />And now we have substantial evidence that Sykes's theories were in fact wrong, based on the diversity of R1b, and more importantly, the complete lack of R1b in ancient DNA in Europe. Perhaps a new study will find ancient R1b in Europe, but until that data is reported, there is really no evidence that R1b was in Europe in the mesolithic, or for that matter, even in the early neolithic. The earliest evidence of R1b in Europe is 1,000 BC at the Lichtenstein Cave: <br /><br />http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml<br /><br />With each new study, the lack of R1b in Europe becomes more striking and makes Sykes's conclusions seem more implausible.GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30703384583142508962012-03-16T18:11:42.747+02:002012-03-16T18:11:42.747+02:00From all that I have read about on this issue it a...From all that I have read about on this issue it appears that at least so far the only mtDNA haplogroups that are conifrmed as being Paleolithic/Mesolithic in origin in Europe are U2, U4 and U5. The Chandler paper does not seem to be credible at all as it was done in 2005 back when they did not take extensive prcautions to avoid contamination. Apparently scientists only really started taking extreme precautions to avoid contamination of ancient bones back in 2009. So anything before that can be seen as fairly irrelevant.<br /><br />The so called haplogroup H samples from Paleo/Meso Morocco also are not reliable. As Gail T has mentioned these studies did not focus on FGS results either. They are very questionable. I suppose that most people on here though will not want to hear this though and will simply keep believing in unreliable results and data.<br /><br />All in all so far the evidence is pointing only to haplogroups U4 and U5 as being the true Paleolithic/Mesolithic haplogroups of Europe. This may change in time though as more reliable ancient DNA testing is done.jackson_montgomery_devonihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17553257488930856466noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15709813695647553752012-03-16T16:09:03.008+02:002012-03-16T16:09:03.008+02:00Dienekes, first let me say that I have followed yo...Dienekes, first let me say that I have followed your blog for several years now and have enjoyed and appreciated your article postings and comments, and I thank you for your efforts in bringing these issues up for the discussions that have taken place here. As a layperson I have never felt qualified to write a response until now. I have read many books on the subject related to this article (at least the Y part), such as Sykes, Oppenheimer and Cunliffe. It just seems to me that their analyses make more sense, that a significant portion of the Celtic West trace their ancestry to before any Neolithic invasion, if not before the LGM. I understand there are strong debates about the dating of SNP mutations, that the science is very much in its infancy, and that there is to date very limited data. I hope everyone can keep an open mind on the subject and appreciate the arguments on both sides of any given question. Thank you again for your efforts.Mark Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03792117663748801194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-869276143017233402012-03-16T10:32:47.449+02:002012-03-16T10:32:47.449+02:00Thousands of farmers schlepping their farm animals...<i>Thousands of farmers schlepping their farm animals invaded and crossed the entire continent of Europe and ended up wiping out the entire population of Ireland, so that it is now 90% R1b.</i><br /><br />It didn't take thousands of farmers. A few of them would suffice, the rest is a matter of exponential progress.<br /><br /><i> I thought farmers were, well, sedentary.</i><br /><br />Farmers have expanded throughout the world in search of new farmland. That is why, for example that forests around the world have been retreating and farmland has been increasing.<br /><br /><i>Funny, my Irish friends don't look Middle Eastern.</i><br /><br />There is no single "Middle Eastern" look. It is certainly the case that starting in the Neolithic there have been massive changes in physical type in Europe, which eventually saw the absorption of the robust low-skulled, broad-faced, long-headed UP Cro-Magnoids of Western Europe, by the people that live there today.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-54772627964168749062012-03-16T09:29:01.034+02:002012-03-16T09:29:01.034+02:00Is there a link to the Chandler et al 2005 paper? ...Is there a link to the Chandler et al 2005 paper? Jean lists the test results on her site, but no dates are given. <br /><br />What procedures were used to avoid contamination? Is that why the results have not been published in a journal?GailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30620927441808453042012-03-16T09:18:23.871+02:002012-03-16T09:18:23.871+02:00To clarify my previous post - the results of nearl...To clarify my previous post - the results of nearly 500 FMS U5 mtDNA results in the U5 project are generally consistent with the Fu et al. paper, and to the extent that they differ, I believe the U5 project results indicate an earlier expansion of U5, perhaps around 20,000 ybp rather than 10.000-15,000 ybp. (Also, Fu et al only considered the coding region, so there analysis will also have less time resolving power.)<br /><br />The U5 project combined with GenBank results also shows high diversity of U5b in Iberia. But one problem with the U5 project is sample bias (with much higher sample frequency in western and northern Europe).<br /><br />I downloaded the Pickard et al 2008 paper, and I think it had some interesting speculation for its time but it is outdated now (for example, note their discussion of the lack of mtDNA J among aDNA in the neolithic) and also, their speculation is more nuanced than you suggest. More importantly, any speculation that does not include recent aDNA testing is obsolete. Unfortunately,even speculation that does include new aDNA results, such as Deguilloux et al(2012), doesn't really help clarify, it only identifies the uncertainties. The Deguilloux paper analysis could be easily summarized as: "large uncertainty, we need more data."<br /><br />We have a small sample of aDNA from hunter-gathers that is mostly U5 and U4. That favors one theory over others but is far from conclusive. We have no strong evidence for H as the mesolithic people who repopulated Europe as the ice retreated. Maybe we will find such evidence, but it's just not there a present. <br /><br />Most importantly, we really need to have full genome mtDNA testing of ancient DNA. The HVR results raise more questions than they answer. In some cases HVR cannot even distinguish U from H. FGS testing of ancient remains will also help refine estimates of mutation rates.<br /><br />The people who I trust as authorities are those who are doing high quality DNA testing and who are also doing competent numerical analysis of the data. In this very new and immature field, having a well known name and getting papers with no analysis published in a journal does not always count for much, in my opinion. <br /> <br />GailGailThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00971924422676678998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81558321525286727012012-03-15T21:53:41.900+02:002012-03-15T21:53:41.900+02:00Dienekes!
Thanks for posting that work. I had only...Dienekes!<br />Thanks for posting that work. I had only to look at the piechart to see that it must be true for us in northern Scandinavia, U5 and K.<br /><br />Yes, hunters and fishermen, for sure gatherers too are U5 and K. The works in Upsala university by Anders Götherström et al (Helena Malmströms diputation) shows that these two mt-DNAs existed among the Hunters populations in Scandinavia. The people as they could see (studing skeletons and teeth) never lived on farming, even if there were in their vicinity farmers.<br /><br />There are still in northern Scandinavia this people, U5 and K.Samequeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15344182280277856345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29874927984856705522012-03-15T19:01:04.984+02:002012-03-15T19:01:04.984+02:00jeanlohizun, I will not waste any more time on you...jeanlohizun, I will not waste any more time on you. Anyone can easily see that the Iberian conference paper has about two orders of magnitude fewer citations than Haak et al. (2005). You can check Google Scholar. <br /><br /><br />They're both from the same year and deal with the same topic: prehistoric Europeans. One was published in some regional Iberian conference, the other in _Science_. One has been cited to death, the other has been ignored. Experts in ancient DNA who are in a better position than any of us to know what research is reliable and what is not, have ignored it.<br /><br />You can continue to believe that it's a reliable paper, and I can continue to doubt that it is. You won't convince me that it's reliable because you've found a couple of archaeologists who mentioned it in some Polish Festschrift. <br /><br />This conversation is over.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88168328923290358182012-03-15T18:12:33.643+02:002012-03-15T18:12:33.643+02:00Fishing played a large role in the hunter-gatherer...Fishing played a large role in the hunter-gatherer culture. Farmers not only raised crops but herded animals. These factors may have raised conflicts between the two cultures. <br /><br />Both would have wanted access to the best river sites, either for fishing or for watering livestock. Herders would have wanted large areas for pasture, which encroached on hunting grounds. Herders would have been able to clear large areas by girdling trees, even though large areas might not have been farmed by ox-drawn wooden plows. <br /><br />In other contexts, hunter-gatherers have been severely impacted by rancher-herders, not farmers.Milton Andersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17622770746473510879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61996038105052305182012-03-15T17:49:48.900+02:002012-03-15T17:49:48.900+02:00Moreover, there is recently published paper by Deg...Moreover, there is recently published paper by Deguilloux et al(2012) which can be found here:<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/evan.20341/full<br /><br />Take a look at this excerpt from the study:<br /><br /><i>Although specific gene pool transformations can be identified only through the comparison of continuous diachronic aDNA datasets, ideally from the same region, aDNA samples are, for the moment, rare, and data from crucial periods are sometimes lacking. Moreover, diachronic data can concern different regions, complicating interpretations in terms of genetic continuity. <br /><b>The late hunter-gatherers analyzed by Bramanti and colleagues31 are from geographically diverse locales, including sites in Germany, Poland, Lithuania, and Russia. Since they are compared to LBK farmers from Hungary, Austria, and Germany, we can wonder if the samples are appropriate to test genetic continuity in north-central Europe. In this case, the geographical and temporal structures of the communities could remain inextricable during genetic analyses. In consequence, we can ask ourselves if there is any acceptable argument that allows us to assume that currently available Mesolithic data apply to the pre-Neolithic Danubian.</b></i><br /><br />[…]<br /><br /><i><b>The representativeness of the hunter-gatherer sample studied by Bramanti and colleagues can, however, be questioned. This sample encompassed a large geographic area and temporal span, thus forming a highly artificial population. The chronological heterogeneity of the sample implies that it incorporates pre-Neolithic individuals from central and northeast Europe, as well as hunter-gatherers postdating the first farmers' arrival in the region (50% of samples, Fig. 2), who may already have incorporated variants from incoming Neolithic groups. In that respect, late hunter-gatherers, such as those of the Ostorf site in Germany (around 3000 cal BC, site 30 in Fig. 2)31 may already have incorporated mtDNA lineages brought by the first farmers, who arrived around 5500 BC. Adding even more confusion to the analyses, the hypothesis that Ostorf people were former farmers who became fishermen around 3300-3200 cal BC has yet to be resolved.32 The geographical heterogeneity of the sample may make the neolithization processes appear simple, when in reality they may have been quite variable at the regional scale</b></i>jeanlohizunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216848866144458976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6205903286729353822012-03-15T17:48:43.751+02:002012-03-15T17:48:43.751+02:00Lol, ok, you found someone citing that paper in a ...<i><br />Lol, ok, you found someone citing that paper in a Polish Festschrift, by a couple of archaeologists and a molecular biologist that doesn't specialize in ancient DNA. I guess we can now all agree that it is high quality data.</i><br /> <br />Ad Hominems!!! Really Dienekes, is that all you got. Here another paper very recently published by the same team on the Cambridge Archaeological Research:<br /> <br />http://edinburgh.academia.edu/CliveBonsall/Papers/994781/Autistic_Spectrum_Disorder_in_Prehistory_2011_<br /> <br />Here is a little biography on the folks who published it:<br /> <br /><b>Catriona Pickard</b> teaches archaeological science and manages laboratory facilities at the School of History Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh. Her publications to date have focused on coastal archaeology, palaeodietary reconstruction and <b>archaeogenetics</b>, and include <i>Submerge Prehistory</i>(2011).<br /> <br /><b>Benjamin Pickard</b> is a Senior Lecturer at the Strathclyde Institute for Pharmacy and Biomedical Science (SIPBS), University of Strathclyde, Glasgow. His research interests focus on the biological and genetic underpinnings of major mental illness.<br /> <br /><b>Clive Bonsall</b> is a Professor of Early Prehistory at the University of Edinburgh. He has carried out excavations in Britain and southeast Europe, and is a Corresponding Member of the Romanian Academy of Scientists and an Honorary Member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences National Institute of Archaeology with Museum. Among his publications are: <i>The Mesolithic in Europe</i> (1989), <i>The Human Use of Caves</i>(1997), <i>The Iron Gates in Prehistory</i>(2008), and <i>Submerged Prehistory</i>.<br /> <br />But you are right, why should we take anything this folks said as legit, after all they are only two Archeologist and a Molecular Geneticist. Moreover, they did not perform any aDNA analysis, but rather compared the literature from Haak et al(2005) and Chandler et al(2005), and I think that a Professor like Clive Bonsall who has written books like : <i>The Mesolithic in Europe</i> (1989) might just be qualified enough to talk about the data in an archeological/historical context, the same applies to Geneticists like Ben Pickard. I’m not trying to say that just because they are experts we should take whatever they say an accept it, that would be an appeal to authority. Now to try to disqualify their research and arguments based in that they do not have according to you enough “experience” on the aDNA subject is just preposterous and the very definition of an Ad Hominem attack. The fact is that you claimed that the validity of the Chandler paper was in question due to it not being published in any journal, or cited by any scientists. That claim is bogus, because certainly the Chandler et al(2005) data is as valid as the Haak et al(2005) data, and the fact that it has been ignored points more to either ignorance of the data by some in the community, or an Ad Hoc approach by others, where the data that doesn’t agree with what is being proposed is disregarded as faulty or ignored for an ideological purpose.jeanlohizunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00216848866144458976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24605679778921991432012-03-15T17:31:49.760+02:002012-03-15T17:31:49.760+02:00> Then why doesn't it show up in any sort o...> Then why doesn't it show up in any sort of admixture runs? I'm yet to see in any such analysis, either by you, me, any other blogger or in academic papers: that component, which should show up very clearly and distinctly. It does not: nowhere! <<br /><br />/ > One question, although maybe slightly off topic - do we have much reason now to think that the Mesolithic and Paleolithic hunter gatherers themselves didn't, predominantly, expand from the same Near East region that the early agriculturalists came from, at the beginning of their "increase in population size around 15,000 to 10,000 YBP" and "end of the last glacial maximum in Europe ... northwards expansion of hunter-gatherer populations"? <<br /><br />That might explain why the Meso substratum is common to the Neo components and thus doesnt show up as a distinct component. If the Meso stratum also originated in the Near East then conceivably the Neo components already absorbed or contained it before they diverged from each other. Then in Europe they absorbed the same stratum there with low population density and low genetic diversity.apostateimpressionshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08992369104954433139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14685238042809741072012-03-15T15:28:48.860+02:002012-03-15T15:28:48.860+02:00Ancient DNA research is unlike conventional DNA re...Ancient DNA research is unlike conventional DNA research in that poor quality data too often hinders reliable research. Poor quality data is worse than no data. I am writing this as a general note of caution, not as a comment on any specific sample.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75829897082335045022012-03-15T14:18:22.793+02:002012-03-15T14:18:22.793+02:00Lol, ok, you found someone citing that paper in a ...Lol, ok, you found someone citing that paper in a Polish Festschrift, by a couple of archaeologists and a molecular biologist that doesn't specialize in ancient DNA. I guess we can now all agree that it is high quality data.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62255198726981028302012-03-15T13:49:50.108+02:002012-03-15T13:49:50.108+02:00I have been just pointed out that the Chandler 200...I have been just pointed out that the Chandler 2005 paper is indeed cited in at least another study: <br /><br />CATRIONA PICKARD, BEN PICKARD AND CLIVE BONSALL, "REASSESSING THE MITOCHONDRIAL DNA EVIDENCE FOR MIGRATION AT THE MESOLITHIC-NEOLITHIC TRANSITION" (<a href="http://edinburgh.academia.edu/CliveBonsall/Papers/251471/Reassessing_the_mitochondrial_DNA_evidence_for_migration_at_the_Mesolithic-Neolithic_transition_2008_" rel="nofollow">available at academia.edu</a> - you need account to read)<br /><br />The authors, as I do, find Haaks 2005 data very unsupportive of demic replacement leading to modern Central Europeans because the resulting gene pool is very different from modern (notably N1a). Discarded the drift hypothesis (mathematical models fail), there are only two options left: later replacement (archaeological support is arguable for Central Europe) or selection, which is the choice for Pickard et al. <br /><br />But I'd rather suggest demic replacement from West (Megalthic peoples?) and East (Indoeuropean) in the Chalcolithic. While modern genetic pools are only observed in the Bronze Age, there is a massive void of data for Germany and nearby areas (excepting the Indoeuropean colony of Eulau in East Germany) for the Chalcolithic period.<br /><br />So I'm leaning for complex replacement in the Chalcolithic in relation with Megalithism, Kurgans, etc.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com