tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post5114554600681054560..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Ancient DNA from Neolithic Sweden (Skoglund et al. 2012)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24506006127964507662012-06-03T06:16:19.356+03:002012-06-03T06:16:19.356+03:00"My bet is, the Anatolians were pre-proto-Ind..."My bet is, the Anatolians were pre-proto-Indo Europeans. While the proto-Indo-Europeans were European Mesolithic hunters turned farmer, but also heavily mixed with Anatolians."<br /><br />Just a thought but if<br /><br />a) farming started in eastern anatolia<br />b) minoans and etruscans were farmers<br />c) minoans and etruscans spoke non-IE languages<br /><br />shouldn't it be the case that the minoans / etrucscans are more likely to be the first farmers from anatolia?<br /><br />In which case the Anatolian farmers talked about on here might not have been the first farmers but the second.<br /><br />How could that have happened?<br /><br />What if the first non-IE farmers expanded to the limits of the range where their agricultural package was viable. However beyond that range they also spawned a secondary range that used a reduced pastoralist version of their package i.e. sheep-herding.<br /><br />(The equivalent - or possibly even the ancestors - of the Gutians who later temporarily over-ran Sumer from what is now Kurdish terriotory.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_people )<br /><br />In this case the PIE would be the first pastoralists in the more mountainous terrain around the edge of the first farmer range rather than first farmers themselves.<br /><br />The sequence would then be the minoan-etruscan anatolians either expand west on their own (or get pushed west by the PIE) but in either case the PIE second farmers displace the first farmers in Anatolia and eventually catch up and displace them elsewhere along the same latitudes except in a few pockets like Basques, Sardinians etc.<br /><br />So basically the same theory but with a twist at the beginning with two layers of neolithic farmers, one non-IE and one PIE.<br /><br />I don't know how well that would fit.Greyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398462488549380796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45990629057642395572012-05-12T00:56:35.156+03:002012-05-12T00:56:35.156+03:00"The origin of Proto-Indo-European probably i..."The origin of Proto-Indo-European probably involved a relatively small West Asian group that arrived in northern Europe and Oetzi-land after 5,000 years ago..."<br /><br />Are you arguing that the Indo-European Urheimat was in Eastern Europe, sort of around Hungary? The idea is plausible.Ovibos Nunivakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06436177315250402002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29931631415434423832012-05-08T06:27:51.160+03:002012-05-08T06:27:51.160+03:00Sorry but The main Y-DNA for Indo-aryas is R1a1a,R...Sorry but The main Y-DNA for Indo-aryas is R1a1a,R2a,H and some J2 but J2 is not significant at all for Brahmins.<br />Clearly for simple sense you cant stamp a single Y-DNA family for the PIE.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59003473679019456782012-05-06T01:08:59.886+03:002012-05-06T01:08:59.886+03:00@ princenuadha
I'm afraid to say as you do &...@ princenuadha <br /><br />I'm afraid to say as you do "That's part of the point. That they were so different after what was probably a long time" is rather misleading. <br /><br />The problem is that there is little evidence for "they" being two parts of a single population. The one TRB sample comes from western Sweden, in an area outside the PWC region. The three PWC samples come from Gotland, 90 kms to the East of Sweden and just 130 kms from Latvia.<br /><br />Thus it is quite possible that a) the populations of western Sweden and of Gotland were quite different in 4100 BC before the beginning of the Neolithic; b) that the PWC represents (at least partly) a movement into the western Baltic by seal-fishing and boar-hunting groups from the eastern Baltic after a period of agricultural economy on Gotland; c) the single Neolithic sample from western Sweden reflects population movement into the area at some time in the 1000 years after the introduction of agriculture there and before she was born.<br /><br />Any or all of these could well be the case, thus complicating things beyond a simplistic model of these results demonstrating that incoming farmers replacing gatherer-hunters in 4100 BC.Nick Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936982799680681315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32882391179171074892012-05-03T09:19:27.283+03:002012-05-03T09:19:27.283+03:00Oh, I forgot to mention Iran, and of course also P...Oh, I forgot to mention Iran, and of course also Pakistan and India further East. I believe G2a is everywhere there by far the most dominant G.<br /><br />There's also G in the Tocharian region all the way to northern China, but I have no idea if that is dominated by G2a or has some Caucasus connection (other G).<br /><br />It would be very interesting to look at star plots/ the geographic distribution of all the sub-levels of G2a.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5447570931362149802012-05-03T09:09:05.713+03:002012-05-03T09:09:05.713+03:00I am not sure he believes there is such a thing. ...I am not sure he believes there is such a thing. However, <b>if</b> one believes that in Europe IE started to spread with the neolithic, then G, or more specifically, G2a, is the only one that makes sense. Firstly, it is (and presumably) was highly available in the centers of agriculture around the Black See. Secondly, at one point in the early neolithic it was sufficiently dominant in Europe to make a language intrusion plausible. Thirdly, to this date it has the lowest concentrations in Europe in areas that either don't speak an IE language or adopted one very late: in Basques, Irish, Scandinavians in general but specifically in Saami and Finns, and also in Balts.<br />Around the area where agriculture started, G2a is high today in Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Druze in Syria, Turkey, and Armenia. Then of course lots in the Caucasus, but intermixed with other Gs.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47145295255706938452012-05-01T11:19:51.844+03:002012-05-01T11:19:51.844+03:00Y-DNA G!?!?!
Harey krishna:-D.
But my question is ...Y-DNA G!?!?!<br />Harey krishna:-D.<br />But my question is what Dienekes suggests.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45177164289229734602012-05-01T07:33:48.330+03:002012-05-01T07:33:48.330+03:00So according to you which Y-DNA/s and Component/s ...<i>So according to you which Y-DNA/s and Component/s is or are the strongest candidate/s for representing the original P.I.E?</i><br /><br />If you ask that question Colin Renfrew today, he should answer: G. ;)eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47579278637762071592012-04-30T08:18:17.960+03:002012-04-30T08:18:17.960+03:00Thats a very suggestive point! But firstly, for th...Thats a very suggestive point! But firstly, for the sake of logic reversely it can also be said that the reason of those differentiations were the result of arrival of Indo-european languages there from somwhere else! Which made it vivid cause as of presence of different groups there whom adopted the language differently! Like Hittite and older Hattians, the hittite has many non I.E. words too! Before 2000b.c. we have no clue but there is a Peacock motif found likely from 2100b.c. as shown by Bryant;-).<br />Secondly, as we can see no genetical uniformity for Different I.E. Groups world wide with Y-DNA and Components! So according to you which Y-DNA/s and Component/s is or are the strongest candidate/s for representing the original P.I.E?.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62831144609304881742012-04-30T06:14:29.977+03:002012-04-30T06:14:29.977+03:00No Turkish sample was used to derive the regressio...No Turkish sample was used to derive the regression equation of Gok4-related ancestry on "Southern" component, because this equation was based on the table of Gok4-related ancestry that did not include a Turkish data point.<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/04/elizabeth-warren-native-american/<br /><br />Turks are off-cline on the allele sharing.<br /><br />http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0hsICjVKyi0/T5mbJjipGpI/AAAAAAAAEy4/HaVPDN91bjY/s400/sharing.pngDienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31744834833276986602012-04-30T00:25:39.534+03:002012-04-30T00:25:39.534+03:00Dienekes-- which Turkish sample did you use in you...Dienekes-- which Turkish sample did you use in your analysis? Based on your Gok4 against K7 Southern regression (Gök4 = (1.721* Southern) + 19.736), I got 74, which does not seem to imply Turkish are so "off-cline". I'm DOD838 btw. Thanks!Prankwenchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593669673746048105noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15316616501807228672012-04-28T19:24:28.692+03:002012-04-28T19:24:28.692+03:00> In other words, I don't think the genetic...> In other words, I don't think the genetic makeup of a single individual from over 1000 years after the transition to farming in southern Sweden...<br /><br />That's part of the point. That they were so different after what was probably a long time.princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81008378871456797222012-04-28T16:41:12.950+03:002012-04-28T16:41:12.950+03:00As a prehistorian, I would say these are interesti...As a prehistorian, I would say these are interesting results, but the press release (I haven't yet seen the article) and the commentary here are rather over-excited.<br /><br />There is very little reason to think that the TRB of 3000 BC is identical with that of 4100 BC, when the Neolithic begins in southern Sweden. For example, that period sees the introduction of new monument types, such as megalithic tombs, earthen long barrows and causewayed enclosures, introductions which could well have been accompanied by population movements from the more southerly parts of the TRB area such as Germany and the Netherlands.<br /><br />In other words, I don't think the genetic makeup of a single individual from over 1000 years after the transition to farming in southern Sweden can tell us anything much at all about the process of transition.Nick Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03936982799680681315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-70564460684011755442012-04-28T16:00:39.684+03:002012-04-28T16:00:39.684+03:00Mycenaean Greek like Hittite is attested in the 2n...Mycenaean Greek like Hittite is attested in the 2nd millennium BC. The language of the Mitanni, evidently within the Indo-Iranian or even Indo-Aryan branch is also of Bronze Age attestation. Several other languages are attested a few centuries later during the Iron Age (Italic and Phrygian for example)<br /><br />These were already well-differentiated languages that must have sprung from a common ancestor much earlier than their first attestation. So, there were in fact Indo-European languages prior to 2,000BC, unless they experienced superhuman levels of differentiation.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-2284973236805087392012-04-28T15:42:35.516+03:002012-04-28T15:42:35.516+03:00The oldest practical evidence for a indo-european ...The oldest practical evidence for a indo-european language is Hittite which is ~4000 years old since rik veda is "dated" to 1700-1100b.c. any claim of indo-european languages existence prior to 2000b.c. is evidently baseless.Nirjhar007https://www.blogger.com/profile/12880827026479135118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36893291440526970522012-04-28T02:51:59.000+03:002012-04-28T02:51:59.000+03:00@Onur,
Adygei are part North European and part Mo...@Onur,<br /><br />Adygei are part North European and part Mongoloid, Druze are a quite idiosyncratic population with high levels of inbreeding.<br /><br />The point is that the relationship of Gok4 to modern populations depends on the makeup of these modern populations. We've had two locations in Europe where we got ancient DNA from, and in both cases the sampled individuals resembled peoples from "somewhere else".<br /><br />So, we should be careful in assuming that modern populations such as the Adygei and Druze are perfect representatives of prehistoric populations from the same regions.<br /><br />In any case, I seem to have perfected my pipeline for getting the Gok4 data, so -fingers crossed- I will be able to pinpoint her affinities more closely.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15907750075937105572012-04-28T01:52:42.434+03:002012-04-28T01:52:42.434+03:00Dieneke, Turks are not the only West Asian populat...Dieneke, Turks are not the only West Asian population involved in this study. There are also Druze and Adyghe, and they too don't align with the Scandinavian farmer sample. It is obvious from the results that the Scandinavian farmer sample is part of a farmer migration wave that has most of its roots in Southern Europe (more from the western part rather than the eastern part, it seems) and not in West Asia (including Anatolia). BTW, allele sharing differences between the analyzed populations are not great, and PCA and ADMIXTURE analyses are much more informative about population relationships.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68106388263236617852012-04-28T00:09:06.708+03:002012-04-28T00:09:06.708+03:00Until I get my hands on the Gok4 genome, I won'...Until I get my hands on the Gok4 genome, I won't speculate on exactly what her genetic identity is. The allele sharing with the various European populations is interesting and gives a broad idea, but, unfortunately, it does not compare her to Near Eastern populations. Turks are quite inadequate for this purpose due to their east Eurasian admixture. We simply don't know why Gok4 matches Cypriots and Greeks so closely. <br /><br />I'd be surprised if it did not involve at least a big chunk of "Southern" based on the pattern of Gok4-related ancestry estimates in the paper, but we don't know at present what else might be there. <br /><br />Getting the data is quite cumbersome, but I'm hopeful I'll figure it out in the end.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-68370459206035761632012-04-27T20:05:49.876+03:002012-04-27T20:05:49.876+03:00@Dienekes ... very nice!!
i wish your knowledge be...@Dienekes ... very nice!!<br />i wish your knowledge be eternal...meaning Dienekes..<br /><br />εις το Διηνεκες....<br /><br /><br /><br />-Themistocles<br />Athens/Greecesomeone892https://www.blogger.com/profile/15006149900727445918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42357442879596624752012-04-27T19:10:40.243+03:002012-04-27T19:10:40.243+03:00The Scandinavian farmer sample is probably Mesolit...The Scandinavian farmer sample is probably Mesolithic North European-admixed to a certain degree (she probably admixed on her way to Scandinavia), as extant Sardinians seem to be genetically more agriculturist and less hunter-gatherer than her.<br /><br />Proto-Indo-Europeans, if they lived in Anatolia, were probably genetically closest to Turks (minus their East Eurasian admixture) and Armenians among extant populations. <br /><br />Based on these presumptions, the Scandinavian farmer sample might be part of a South European-originated farmer migration wave rather than Anatolian, and Indo-Europeans might be part of an Anatolian-originated migration wave (albeit with a small genetic impact outside Anatolia and the nearby IE-speaking regions).Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42238991949857223132012-04-27T18:52:57.083+03:002012-04-27T18:52:57.083+03:00>the difference between Basques and Indo-Europe...>the difference between Basques and Indo-Europeans in Southwest Europe and Finns and Indo-Europeans in Northeast Europe<br /><br />Compare this with the idea of reconstructing native americans from native-american-speaking populations: then Guarani-speaking paraguayans (50%-60% european) would be like your Finns or Basques. And spanish-speaking tobas (5% euro) would not be taken into account.Andréshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00708925743497933631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-14515340679474982472012-04-27T17:31:43.756+03:002012-04-27T17:31:43.756+03:00My bet is, the Anatolians were pre-proto-Indo Euro...<i>My bet is, the Anatolians were pre-proto-Indo Europeans. While the proto-Indo-Europeans were European Mesolithic hunters turned farmer, but also heavily mixed with Anatolians.</i><br /><br />If PIE was formed out of a synthesis of Anatolian farmer and Northern European Mesolithic hunter, as you suppose, then it would have come into existence after 5,000 years ago, because, at present European farmers of c. 5,000 years ago appear more akin to the Mediterranean than to the Caucasus.<br /><br />But, 5,000 years ago, PIE had already experienced its deepest splits. It cannot have come into existence by the proposed process of fusion, after it was already in existence and had begun its breakup.<br /><br />Moreover, it cannot have come into existence in much of the territory of Europe that seems to be quite "Mediterranean" in the Neolithic based on the available evidence, since the "Mediterranean" components seem to be particularly lacking in the eastern Indo-Europeans of Central and South Asia.<br /><br />The origin of Proto-Indo-European probably involved a relatively small West Asian group that arrived in northern Europe and Oetzi-land after 5,000 years ago, and is detected today by noting e.g., the difference between Basques and Indo-Europeans in Southwest Europe and Finns and Indo-Europeans in Northeast Europe, i.e., the two regions where non-Indo-European speakers survive.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42836663929795874462012-04-27T16:42:54.207+03:002012-04-27T16:42:54.207+03:00"Allele sharing only makes sense with populat..."Allele sharing only makes sense with populations that don't have extraneous influences, because they are averages of the local and foreign element.<br /><br />That is why, for example, Turks appear so off-cline, because they are ~6% East Eurasian, and their allele sharing is a weighted average of the ~94% (that is probably on-cline) and the ~6% that has much lower allele sharing with both farmer and H/G groups."<br /><br />Yeah, maybe, but that shouldn't affect the French or the Dutch, etc.<br /><br />I think the reason the Turks are so far down the list of the farmer is the high level of the so called Caucasus component in them, which is basically missing in Oetzi, the TRB woman, and in modern Sardinians. This is also the missing piece of the puzzle across much of Europe IMO.<br /><br />It seems the maritime Mediterranean farmers were quite different from Anatolian farmers, specifically in that they lacked what we call the Caucasus component.<br /><br />So a good question is, where did these Mediterranean farmers come from? The Levant prior to the expansion of Anatolian farmers? Or perhaps North Africa?<br /><br />We know where the Anatolian farmers came from, and they seemed to have affected much of Europe profoundly...except of course the Basques, Sardinians and also Balts, Finns, and even some Iberian groups.<br /><br />My bet is, the Anatolians were pre-proto-Indo Europeans. While the proto-Indo-Europeans were European Mesolithic hunters turned farmer, but also heavily mixed with Anatolians.Davidskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04637918905430604850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78224464210083374272012-04-27T16:04:16.241+03:002012-04-27T16:04:16.241+03:00The archaeological article is interesting as it su...The archaeological article is interesting as it suggests that pitted ware hunter gatherers ultimately took over most of the territory of the funnel beaker farmers.<br /><br /><a href="http://independent.academia.edu/AsaMLarsson/Papers/107516/Pots_Pits_and_People._Hunter-Gatherer_Pottery_Traditions_in_Neolithic_Sweden" rel="nofollow">http://independent.academia.edu/AsaMLarsson/Papers/107516/Pots_Pits_and_People._Hunter-Gatherer_Pottery_Traditions_in_Neolithic_Sweden</a>Amanda Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05997180528147657311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38338721400905140012012-04-27T15:58:34.964+03:002012-04-27T15:58:34.964+03:00Allele sharing only makes sense with populations t...Allele sharing only makes sense with populations that don't have extraneous influences, because they are averages of the local and foreign element.<br /><br />That is why, for example, Turks appear so off-cline, because they are ~6% East Eurasian, and their allele sharing is a weighted average of the ~94% (that is probably on-cline) and the ~6% that has much lower allele sharing with both farmer and H/G groups.<br /><br />All in all, it would have been idea to use east Eurasian groups as controls; if we had data on the allele sharing baseline with such groups, then we could estimate allele sharing of the West Eurasian component in populations of mixed East/West Eurasian ancestry.<br /><br />Another point that needs to be made is that populations differ in their average levels of allele sharing with both groups, with populations towards the top-right end of Panel C having more sharing and bottom-left end less sharing. Again, this may be due to the involvement of other groups, but may also be due to different sample sizes/heterozygosities in different populationsDienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com