tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5020643835207637352..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Modern Scandinavians descended (maybe) from Neolithic TRB but not Mesolithic Pitted Ware ancestorsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38715354239952702032010-08-24T21:37:32.520+03:002010-08-24T21:37:32.520+03:00This comment is a little late and slightly off top...<i>This comment is a little late and slightly off topic, but I can't help but notice how often cranial shape is used to bolster genetic relatedness arguments on your blog. </i><br /><br />Human craniometric traits are <a href="http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/03/heritability-of-human-craniometric.html" rel="nofollow">heritable</a>, so they _can_ be used to bolster genetic relatedness arguments, provided that a sufficient number of them are used, in which case the clustering produced using autosomal markers is largely <a href="http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/anthropologica/clustering.html" rel="nofollow">reproduced</a>.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56734945809490629432010-08-24T21:28:08.002+03:002010-08-24T21:28:08.002+03:00This comment is a little late and slightly off top...This comment is a little late and slightly off topic, but I can't help but notice how often cranial shape is used to bolster genetic relatedness arguments on your blog. <br /><br />The shape of the human head is affected primarily by two non-genetic forces--the toughness of the foods people eat while their jaws are developing and the actual physical molding/shaping of thier heads done by the doctor or midwife immediately after their birth (all babies pop out with their heads a little misshapened from their trip down the birth canal--studies have shown that cultural preferences in baby-head-shape influence how baby heads are molded post-birth--in the US, baby-head-shape has change from a rounder one to a more oblong one, just since 1940s/50s--and this is 100% the result of post-birth molding done at the hospital).<br /><br />Proper formation of the human jaw requires chewing on fairly tough substances for the first 18-20 years of life. The result is a broad/wide face. The long, narrow, Anglo-European face is actually not genetic at all but the result of eating soft food as children (and actually fairly typical of all soft food cultures)--it is and incorrect jaw formation and a mistake that results in widespread malocclusion (most people think malocclusion--i.e. crooked teeth-- is genetic, but it rarely is, it is predominantely dietary). <br /><br />The fact that this facial type emerged with the onset of agriculture was not a coincidence. It is cause and effect. The human diet became considerably softer after the advent of agriculture and thus the narrow, badly malocclused face was "born."<br /><br />To correct for the soft diet today, you have to use a crozat retainer--even adults with fully matured jaws can benefit from a crozat retainer. In comparisons of photographs of twins, where one twin was given traditional braces and teeth removal to correct for malocclusion, and the other a crozat retainer, most people found the wider, crozat face much more attractive, and determinations of attractiveness is a proxy for human assumptions of genetic fitness.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10597915139164306328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11540682156196960482009-12-22T08:21:17.766+02:002009-12-22T08:21:17.766+02:00As the few last comments point it, I don't see...As the few last comments point it, I don't see much of archeological-related arguments in all these ideas about Hunter-Gatherers & Farmers... I see people with an idea, trying to say that whatever genetic data implies whatever occupation. It is not really an anthropology blog. It is an anthropology blog focused on genetic discoveries. Yet very interesting.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00345286689865184924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17816679075158116302009-10-02T03:42:13.349+03:002009-10-02T03:42:13.349+03:00Thinking about this... I thought the ancient Scan...Thinking about this... I thought the ancient Scandinavians used to cremate people? Burning ships pushed out to sea or on pyres.<br /><br />Burial does seem rather impractical in a cold climate. <br /><br />May be what we are seeing are immigrants with different burial practices.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-26157226319190004932009-09-30T06:48:07.377+03:002009-09-30T06:48:07.377+03:00I'm surprised at the possibility that a popula...<i>I'm surprised at the possibility that a population could regress back to hunter-gatherer. Do you have an explanation how/why that would happen?</i> - <br /><br />For what I know, it's mostly that people never really stopped hunting and gathering, that agriculture and hunter-gathering were complementary in Neolithic Ukraine/Don, though with a tendency to increase the agricultural/herding fraction of the economy. <br /><br />Then the NW area (relative to Ukraine: Baltic) was also one of low population densities (excepting maybe Denmark and some specific LBK districts): it was a "frontier" area where lot of wild nature stil existed making hunter-gathering more efficient than an agriculture original from the Mediterranean that always had problems adapting to high latitudes, specially the cold/wet Oceanic climate. <br /><br />I guess it's about that. You could well say that fur trappers in other contexts were hunter-gatherers, even if they belonged to larger neolithic economic units/societies. Probably fur trapping and maybe even trading these was a big deal of their economy, in a time when trade was already going on at large scale (that's why it's Chalcolithic and not mere Neolithic, even where soft metals were not used locally). <br /><br />Ask an expert anyhow.<br /><br /><i>We would still have the issue of these populations having vastly huge frequencies of U4/U5. The contradictions with the Iberian/Paglicci results, or with the amazingly homogenous modern mtdna distribution, would still stand</i>. <br /><br />Indeed. But it makes some sense because U (U5 and even more others like U4, U3) tends to be more frequent towards the East, while H is instead towards the West. <br /><br /><i>So when did the first farming (aka Neolithic?) really occur in Denmark/Sweden?</i>. <br /><br />According to my notes, in the second half of the 5th milennium, with Ertebölle culture, which was largely oriented to sea exploitation but had already clear agriculture, cattle and pottery. By the 4th milennium it evolved into an early Funnelbeaker form (TRBK-B, which is older than TRBK-A - there was an error in early estratigraphy, it seems). And then, in the advanced 4th milennium is when the Dniepr-Don related hunter-gatherers of Sarnowo and what some also call Pitted Ware of the East Baltic begin migrating, which is roughly coincident with Seredny-Stog II, that is a mixed DD/Kurgan complex rather than a single culture. The Eastern Pitted Ware phenomenon would have influence, for what I've read the Danish-plus TRBK in the later phases, while they were also influenced by the west by Megalithic culture: this caused a "double" cultural area, with two types of burials: megalithic ("collective" or "clannic") and "standard" (with strong resemblances to DD: ochre and stuff like that). In middle coastal Sweden Pitted Ware strictu sensu dominates instead almost solo. <br /><br />But read other stuff because it's not like I'm uber-informed on this issue anyhow.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71751583144509677792009-09-30T06:01:58.999+03:002009-09-30T06:01:58.999+03:00As to the hunter-gatherers' "regression&q...As to the hunter-gatherers' "regression", I would say that the farther back you go in time, the more professions become parallel cultures.<br /><br />Nowadays, most people have a long general education followed by a short specialized one, followed by stints at one to a few different professions. And most people use similar tools and live similar lives.<br /><br />Going back just a few hundred years, apprentices traveled hundred of miles, lived with their masters, and learned "secrets" of trade, tools and construction that were not easily obtainable otherwise.<br /><br />Then you had other "business models" like gypsies and traveling salesmen. Going back farther, perhaps brewers or tradespeople had rather different cultures than their hosts (one interpretation of the Bell-Beaker culture).<br /><br />Also, note that these "hunter-gatherers" were predominantly fishers. Fishermen and trappers have had very successful "business models" while living quite different lives, for millenia and up until the most recent past (even in the US, and including e.g. the Inuits).<br /><br />The fishing people could have also had uncharacteristically dark skin and dark hair for Nordic latitudes, making genetic separation easier (because they looked so different).eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21118960781487211832009-09-30T03:40:13.655+03:002009-09-30T03:40:13.655+03:00@ Argiedude
The short version is that:
Aurignaci...@ Argiedude<br /><br />The short version is that:<br /><br />Aurignacian=<br />Stone-tool Hunter-Gatherers. <br /><br />Gravettian=<br />Bone-tool Hunter-Gathers. The Mammoth Hunters.<br /><br />Neolithic=Farmers<br /><br />There were a number of cultures in the Neolithic. Near as I can see if they are rich in Haplogroup U they are considered Hunter-Gatherers and if there are a lot of other haplogroups they are considered farmers. <br /><br />So the Pitted Ware people (who farmed) are considered regressed farmers as they are rich in Haplogroup U. <br /><br />And the Funnel Beaker people are considered farmers in the Sweden paper (contains no U) and Hunter-Gatherers in the Bramanti paper (rich in U).<br /><br />Techniques like these ensure that the paper comes to the desired conclusions (that is, farmers physically replaced Hunter gatherers). In the teeth of evidence to the contrary. <br /><br />The subtext is the implication that the Hunter-Gatherer Haplogroups were genetically inferior. That they were replaced by a more advanced model of people with the cultural change (farming). <br /><br />Personally I think reality is rarely that simple. Betamax and VHS comes to mind for example. And in the hunting/farming transition there is plenty of evidence of U embracing farming cultures.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64298945196532624922009-09-30T01:41:55.460+03:002009-09-30T01:41:55.460+03:00Nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact th...<i>Nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that The Pitted Ware culture (ca 3200 BC– ca 2300 BC) was a neolithic Hunter-gatherer culture... (from Wikipedia)</i><br /><br />I've been paying attention. I have to say, my knowledge of prehistoric cultures is almost zero, terms like Gravettian dumbfound me completely, I couldn't place them anywhere on a map or a timeline, I don't have the slightest clue. Some questions...<br /><br />I'm surprised at the possibility that a population could regress back to hunter-gatherer. Do you have an explanation how/why that would happen? [Climate gets worse? That's all I can think of.]<br /><br />We would still have the issue of these populations having vastly huge frequencies of U4/U5. The contradictions with the Iberian/Paglicci results, or with the amazingly homogenous modern mtdna distribution, would still stand.<br /><br />So when did the first farming (aka Neolithic?) really occur in Denmark/Sweden?argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53306917287803147022009-09-28T07:25:53.295+03:002009-09-28T07:25:53.295+03:00Here there is an interesting article on the Scandi...Here there is <a href="http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aneu_01/aneu_01_00095.html" rel="nofollow">an interesting article</a> on the Scandinavian facies of Pitted Ware: they had pigs and occasionally farmed cereals!<br /><br />The rounded-pointed base of the pots, among other items (burial customs) that they came from Dniepr-Don offshots, that at the time were colonizing the NW (Belarus, Baltic countries...) similarly in a regressive way to hunter-gathering, a practice that was never fully abandoned in Neolithic Ukraine.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37934311181685285022009-09-28T07:10:04.830+03:002009-09-28T07:10:04.830+03:00Nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact th...Nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that <i>The Pitted Ware culture (ca 3200 BC– ca 2300 BC) was a <b>neolithic</b> Hunter-gatherer culture</i>... (from Wikipedia)<br /><br />That they were (regressed into) hunter-gatherers doesn't mean necessarily that they represent local Paleolithic continuity. This also applies to the other paper, where most of the samples (all the ones from Poland and Latvia) also belong to this "regressive" Neolithic cultural area. <br /><br />If you have to make a case for pre-Neolithic peoples of Northern Europe being different, you'd have to first of all sample actual pre-Neolithic peoples that offer some guarantees. To me this only seems to suggest that the U5/U4 lineages may have arrived from Neolithic Ukraine within this migration. If confirmed, it'd mean that Dniepr-Don and Danubian Neolithics were very different genetically.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-44616152363524465322009-09-28T04:36:34.874+03:002009-09-28T04:36:34.874+03:00I think the story is going to be told with the pat...<i>I think the story is going to be told with the patterns of subclades.</i><br /><br />Definitely. Almost all of the H and U haplogroups are so old that finer details of the subclades are the only way to make progress.<br /><br />Also, there seem to be an enormous number of founder effects since the original settling of Europe and continuing through until our most recent past. With so many different haplogroups and subclades "competing", and likely thousand of local founder effects throughout the millennia, I am not surprised that many strains did not or almost not survive - some of their numbers in absolute terms - especially before the advent of agriculture - must have been minute, but with a surprisingly high initial diversity.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18847209415088610382009-09-28T04:03:46.749+03:002009-09-28T04:03:46.749+03:00The Welsh "Paviland" 26000 ybp burial wa...The Welsh "Paviland" 26000 ybp burial was also Mtdna Hdderinosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241585109111424054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35459750978288834642009-09-28T03:04:32.111+03:002009-09-28T03:04:32.111+03:00The most interesting part of these papers is that ...The most interesting part of these papers is that they show the dominance of U in Northern Europe AFTER the glaciation period (and before). This implies that either Humans remained (with much diminished numbers) in Northern Europe during the last ice age, or repopulated Northern Europe from a different ice age refuge. Fascinating either way.<br /><br />I think the story is going to be told with the patterns of subclades.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66666391585067039382009-09-27T23:44:05.170+03:002009-09-27T23:44:05.170+03:00I'm showing the massive evidence in favor of g...I'm showing the massive evidence in favor of genetic continuity, not to prove it, but to demonstrate that your idea that these studies have settled the matter and constitute a nail-in-the-coffin of the genetic continuity theory are way overblown. [you forgot the 3 Paglicci samples, no U4/U5, but 2 of them are in superhaplogroup HV]argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14627727359168256452009-09-27T22:01:07.027+03:002009-09-27T22:01:07.027+03:00These maps were made by me using 25,000 samples fr...<i>These maps were made by me using 25,000 samples from scientific studies (and in the case of U5 an extra 10,000 samples from mitosearch). It's as detailed as it gets. Both maps are a picture perfect description of genetic continuity. The results are exactly what would be expected from genetic continuity.</i><br /><br />Right, 25,000 samples from scientific samples, and 10,000 samples from mitosearch, <i>all of them from the late 20th/early 21st century</i>, prove genetic continuity for tens of thousands of years...<br /><br /><i>With regards to N1a, he assumes evolution (what a trump card) must have made it disappeared, with no evicence.</i><br /><br />Do me the courtesy of reading what I write before repeating the same nonsense.<br /><br />I will say it once more, but, given your close-mindedness and a priori belief in a Paleolithic origin of Europeans, I doubt that it will do any good.<br /><br />Primary descent from Neolithic farmers can be reconciled with the modern gene pool if:<br /><br />1. N1a experienced a reduction in frequency.<br /><br />Primary descent from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers can be reconciled with the modern gene poll if:<br /><br />1. U- subclades experienced a massive reduction in frequency.<br />2. Non-detected haplogroups in the Paleolithic gene pool were in fact present.<br />3. These <i>multiple</i> not detected haplogroups experienced a massive increase in frequency.<br /><br />ERGO: Descent from Neolithic farmers is a much simpler hypothesis than descent from Paleolithic hunter-gatherers.<br /><br />PS: It doesn't matter one iota if you include the questionable late Portuguese Mesolithic population, as the total sample remains U-dominated and H-deficient.<br /><br />PPS: The hypothesis of neutral evolution, i.e., the derivation of the modern gene pool from that of the hunter-gatherers via simple genetic drift has been tested and <i>rejected</i>. So, if you accuse me of postulating "natural selection", you should be aware that natural selection is the only way in which the Paleolithic gene pool could have transformed itself into the modern European gene pool.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60606323318462255182009-09-27T21:39:26.810+03:002009-09-27T21:39:26.810+03:00mtdna U5 map
Note: numbers in yellow indicate samp...<a href="http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/5927/u5mtdnadistribution.gif" rel="nofollow">mtdna U5 map</a><br />Note: numbers in yellow indicate sample sizes less than 100.<br /><br /><a href="http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/491/hmtdnadistribution.gif" rel="nofollow">mtdna H map</a><br /><br />These maps were made by me using 25,000 samples from scientific studies (and in the case of U5 an extra 10,000 samples from mitosearch). It's as detailed as it gets. Both maps are a picture perfect description of genetic continuity. The results are <b>exactly</b> what would be expected from genetic continuity.<br /><br />U5 gradually declines away from its center, as happens with all haplogroups everywhere in the world. There are no abrupt, sharp changes, except where there are serious geographic barriers, which is in line with ancient genetic continuity (historic movements of people were much less affected by sea and mountains).<br /><br />According to the latest mtdna results, Europe would have been 70% or more U5, and was then swamped by Anatolian/Mid-Eastern farmers who had very little U5, if any at all. There should be some very sharp clines in the modern map of U5. Instead, U5 shows the typical pattern of all haplogroups everywhere in Africa and Eurasia: it gradually declines from 10% in East Europe to 7% in southeast Europe, to 3% in Anatolia, to 1% in the Middle East. You see the same rate of decline as you travel east to the Urals, then Central Asia, and then eastern Siberia. Or west into West Europe and then into North Africa. And notice that Greece and Bulgaria have pretty much the same frequency of U5 as Iberia or Britain, despite that the farmers entered through the southeast. The Caucasus, much closer to Anatolia, has a rate of U5 around 7% or 8% (n=thousands of samples), comparable to West Europe. That doesn't quite fit with the farmer expansion theory.<br /><br />By the way, there was an ancient mtdna study of Mycanean Crete (3500 ya) published last year that found 1 U5a1, 1 K (2 samples, brother and sister), and 1 undefined that could have been almost anything, including H and U4, but excluding U5.<br /><br />Dienekes mentions that U4/U5 results like if the case has been closed, but he conveniently forgets the paleolithic Iberian results (making the ridiculous claim that it's not trustworthy), and he conveniently ignores the huge problem of the Neolithic results, which is their massive presence of N1a. With regards to N1a, he <b>assumes</b> evolution (what a trump card) must have made it disappeared, with no evicence. The same assumption he's accusing Annie Mousse of displaying. When I noted the European Neolithic farmers had already been farming for several thousand years and should have lost their N1a already, Dienekes makes another assumption and says that <i>obviously</i> N1a must have been more abundant at the beginning of the farming revolution and was on its way down in the European Neolithic farmers.<br /><br />The U4/U5 results are very interesting. They're a huge spoke in the wheels for genetic continuity. But the farmer expansion theory is riddled with its own very serious contradictions, which Dienekes assumes away with evolution and without any evidence. Proportionately, the reduction of N1a was a lot worse than the reduction of U4/U5, to the point that when Haak published his study of the mtdna of Neolithic Europe with 25% N1a, he concluded that modern Europeans <b>weren't</b> descended from Neolithic farmers. I don't agree with his logic, but it shows how the farmer theory has just as many very serious contradictions as the U4/U5 studies have now thrown onto the genetic continuity theory.argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69270333511982956742009-09-27T11:53:49.168+03:002009-09-27T11:53:49.168+03:00I insist: Pitted Ware is not Paleolithic and is co...I insist: Pitted Ware is not Paleolithic and is contemporary of TRBK with Megalithism, though in different geographical areas. <br /><br />There's absolutely no reason to think that Pitted Ware peoples, surely just arrived to the area from Ukraine in a rather well known migratory wave, were older in the area than the people more or less reflected in the Megalithic burial sample. In fact the opposite is probably true. <br /><br />Wake up!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31018257936026844102009-09-27T10:59:57.747+03:002009-09-27T10:59:57.747+03:00I did counter your argument. But you just dont see...<i>I did counter your argument. But you just dont seem to see what you dont want to see.</i><br /><br />Your counter-argument amounts to this:<br /><br />"HV*, well that is a bit broad and unspecified. <b>But most known have HVR1 mutations.</b>"<br /><br />"Most known" is vague. Most H has HVR1 mutations too. And, the percentages that do not, and are simply rCRS were given by me above. And, the reason why rCRS is usually thought to be H <i>today</i> is because H is much more frequent than HV <i>today</i>. But, you can't make that inference about 28,000 years ago. <br /><br />So your counter-argument is non-existent. In order to infer that Paglicci was haplogroup H, you need to assume that H was more frequent than HV* in Europe 28,000 years ago. So, you prove H's presence in European hunter-gatherers by assuming it. Faulty logic.<br /><br /><br /><i>For the record Greece and Italy have the lowest frequencies of H in Europe. NOT what you would expect if there was an East to West migration of H into Europe via Greece.</i><br /><br />There are much better <a href="http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/articles/greekmtdna/" rel="nofollow">data</a> for Greece than the ones in the Eupedia article.<br /><br />Also, there is no need to use modern frequencies of H, when we now have dozens ancient pre-farming samples from Europe, where the frequency is much much lower than today. It is also strange to make inferences about directionality of movement based on a few percentage points of modern differences, when we observe 40%+ of difference between pre-farming and modern Europeans.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72491634692574956832009-09-27T09:37:47.588+03:002009-09-27T09:37:47.588+03:00I should have said: amongst the lowest in Europe. ...I should have said: amongst the lowest in Europe. Switzerland and Ireland (backwaters) are also low.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51693606528121788952009-09-27T09:34:32.390+03:002009-09-27T09:34:32.390+03:00I did counter your argument. But you just dont se...I did counter your argument. But you just dont seem to see what you dont want to see.<br /><br />"12308A eliminates U.<br /><br />00073A,11719G<br /><br />Puts it in HV and subgroups. Almost all the groups in R and HV have a HVR1 mutations. Most of the papers we are looking at have lesser standards for Haplogroup identification."<br /><br />U* is eliminated by 12308A.<br /><br />HV1 has a mutation at 16067 which was not observed.<br /><br />HV*, well that is a bit broad and unspecified. But most known have HVR1 mutations. And it is has never been reported as a particularly numerous group.<br /><br />For the record Greece and Italy have the lowest frequencies of H in Europe. NOT what you would expect if there was an East to West migration of H into Europe via Greece.<br /><br />http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_mtdna_haplogroups_frequency.shtmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64793002373823461262009-09-27T07:49:29.563+03:002009-09-27T07:49:29.563+03:00Not sure if someone said this already but:
1. Pit...Not sure if someone said this already but:<br /><br />1. Pitted Ware is a Neolithic culture (albeit regressed to hunter-gathering) of the Chalcolithic Age (paneuropean chronology), including large areas of the Eastern Baltic and central Sweden. It has nothing to do with Denmark. <br /><br />2. Neolithic did not arrive to Denmark with Pitted Ware or its somehow related (both seem originated somewhat in Dniepr-Don) Funnelbeaker culture. Neolithic in Denmark and Scania is a matter of an older period and culture: Ertebölle, a local development with whatever influences from Danubian Neolithic. Denmark-Scania had been in the Neolithic since long before these Ukranian influences. <br /><br />3. Ertebölle evolved, apparently on its own, into early Funnelbeaker (TRBK-B) but in later TRBK (A, C and late) it is apparent the same kind of "Ukranian" influences as those of Pitted Ware, all suggestive of a migration from Eastern Europe into the Baltic Area (earlier than Kurgans). At that time Denmark also experimented the western influence of Megalithism, showing a hybrid culture that persists for about a millennium until the Single Burials period (Kurgan, Corded Ware). <br /><br />Just for the record.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85120603272219122892009-09-27T00:05:34.585+03:002009-09-27T00:05:34.585+03:00Dienekes' assertion that mtdna frequencies hav...Dienekes' assertion that mtdna frequencies have changed noticeably in the last 2000 years (Etruscans, Danish, England) doesn't jive with the fact that today's mtdna frequencies are notoriously homogenous across Europe, which would require either very massive internal migrations in the last 2000 years, to the point of almost complete population replacement everywhere in Europe, or an amazing coincidence (all the random fluctuations just happened to randomly result in each region of Europe having almost the exact same haplogroup distribution). Or a third possibility... evolution... which would have to be on an unprecedented scale, and would involve a bizarre outcome consisting of several dozen haplogroups, each having a specific evolutionary advantage so as to explain why there isn't a single dominant haplogroup in Europe but instead a basket of many. And their evolutionary advantages would have to act upon pan-European variables, not stuff like climate or diet, otherwise Mediterranean, Atlantic, and Continental regions should have resulted in different sets of haplogroups; instead, they're all basically identical, with minor differences.argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69922424480052675182009-09-26T23:59:44.775+03:002009-09-26T23:59:44.775+03:00By the way, no conclusions can be drawn about the ...By the way, no conclusions can be drawn about the Lapps using mtdna because they have unquestionably undergone genetic drift. 50% of their mtdna is U5b1b1 (something like that), and they also have 30% or more V, which is completely off the charts compared to any other population of the world, a situation similar to Ashkenazis having 30%+ mtdna K, while the rest of the Caucasian world ranges between 3% and 10%.<br /><br />Lapps have 0.0% U4 and 0.7% U5a (Simoni, 2000 [n=240]; Tambets, 2004 [n=445]). If their relative proportions of U4, U5a, and U5b in the pre-drift population were similar to Finns, then a <b>very</b> rough estimate of their pre-drift U5 frequency results in 7% to 10% U5.argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66542756856593355832009-09-26T23:40:46.214+03:002009-09-26T23:40:46.214+03:00Paglicci 25 belongs to R0(xH). It doesn't nece...Paglicci 25 belongs to R0(xH). It doesn't necessarily belong to HV, so it could possibly be an ancestral lineage of H. This would make sense in a 23,000 year old sample from Europe.<br /><br />Paglicci 12 is N1.<br /><br />Paglicci 23, because it's CRS, is almost certainly R0 (R0, pre-HV, HV, or H).<br /><br />No U samples. Perhaps by a very long shot Paglicci-23 is U*, but definitely not U4/U5. Put this together with the Paleolithic results from Iberia and Morocco and there's a serious problem with the notion that all of Europe was U4/U5 and became replaced by the H farmers; who actually had more N1a than H, which has somehow magically disappeared, while the U4/U5 of the displaced aborigines is today 50 times more abundant than N1a! You can't say the demic diffusion theory has been conclusively proven with all these flagrant contradictions still existing. I can admit that genetic continuity has its own very serious contradiction due to the U4/U5 mtdna results.<br /><br /><i>The rCRS occurs in diverse haplogroup backgrounds: U*, HV*, H, and V. Its frequency in these backgrounds is: 0.1%, 5.4%, 6.4%, 3.8%.</i><br /><br />Those are probably including HVRII. A better gauge would be just from HVRI, because all these ancient mtdna studies report only HVRI mutations, so here are the frequencies of CRS as per Richards (2000), using only HVRI mutations (the range is limited to 16090-16365, but I've verified in mitosearch that there's no big difference if the range is extended to include up to 16519):<br /><br />pre-HV 0%<br />HV* 10%<br />HV1 25%<br />V 0%<br />H 33%<br />U* 33%argiedudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11512295756932222613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-46421130358590159352009-09-26T18:29:48.537+03:002009-09-26T18:29:48.537+03:00Argueing about H is unseemly. It is H. Almost ever...<i> Argueing about H is unseemly. It is H. Almost everyone but you believes this. The alternative is academic fraud.</i><br /><br />I don't care what "everyone but me believes"; can you counter my argument, or is your evidence limited to quaint proverbs about ducks?Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com