World Families Forums - Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 22, 2014, 10:28:49 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse.
| |-+  R1b General (Moderator: rms2)
| | |-+  Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Beaker Folk Finds: Skulls, Reconstructions, Artifacts, etc.  (Read 8720 times)
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #75 on: June 30, 2012, 12:37:29 PM »

what does 'west Asian' .Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies. 
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #76 on: June 30, 2012, 01:10:54 PM »


I don't. I suspect that those people were (some of)  the ancestors of the Basques. I wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it. I don't think that we have enough information to be certain. In my Basque section I conclude that the Basques remain a bit of a mystery and plead for more aDNA.

However I suggest that the Basques are a  people of mixed origins, like all Europeans. I suggest that they descend from a sequence of peoples who settled in the shadow of the northern Pyrenees: Mesolithic hunters, Cardial Ware farmers and Copper Age pastoralists who brought R1b, LP and a language from the Balkans.



So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly? Basques did not get most of their LP from their Neolithic ancestors such as the people found in SJAPL(3000 BC, Southern Alava, Basque Country), but from these so called “Stelae people”.


Also, following your hypothesis we should expect to see a new morphological type entering the Basque Country at some point between the 2000 BC and 3000 BC, or the arrival of metallurgy. You got any evidence for that? 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 01:11:51 PM by JeanL » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #77 on: June 30, 2012, 01:13:41 PM »

what does 'west Asian' .Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies. 

That terminology is not used in studies, but by Genome Bloggers such as Polako, Dienekes, etc. They are simply naming the clusters where they peak, or how they think it is appropriate to name them.
 
Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #78 on: June 30, 2012, 01:53:48 PM »

The issue of when R1b got into the beaker network is very interesting. I would tend to see the linkages with bell beaker as having a slightly earlier/upstream chronology.  L51*, although perhaps largely a a parallel line to L11*, seems to have higher variance than L11.  It also has a pattern that is strikingly similar to the beaker network as it was up to about 2600BC.  That, together with the actual M269XU106 beaker burial recently find do indicate that R1b of L51 and perhaps just below was in the beaker network fairly early and perhaps before.  L51 actually looks like it first occurred in western Europe somewhere within the beaker network as its close to unknown to the east.  That implies to me that L51 actually occurred in an L23* man using the beaker network.  L23* in Europe has a clear southern and east-west variance distribution.  Something that isnt true for anything downstream.

http://rokus01.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/l23.png

This distribution tends to me to suggest a southern route through western Europe but with origins in the Balkans and ultimate origins further east.  L23* would tend to fit Jean's stelae route 1 in my opinion. In western Europe it also has a strong resemblance to the zone of earliest beaker dates.  However, that is the bit I would be least confident about due to the later prehistory of settlements in the west Med. of east Med. origins.  

In general Rokus's L23* variance map, RR's L51* distribution map (perhaps as a proxy early L11*) and L11 downstream clades seem respectively to resemble very early beaker,  beaker c. 2600BC and beaker about 2500BC (I am of course generalising).  If there was a pre-beaker group like Jean's Stelae people then I would feel they would not have been further downstream than L23* because as far as I can see L51* does not and probably never did exist in eastern Europe.  
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 10:19:19 AM by alan trowel hands. » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #79 on: June 30, 2012, 01:54:06 PM »

So let me see if I understand what you are saying correctly? Basques did not get most of their LP from their Neolithic ancestors such as the people found in SJAPL (3000 BC, Southern Alava, Basque Country), but from these so called “Stelae people”.

No - the exact opposite. I'm saying that the San Juan Ante Portam Latinam (Spain) people 3000 BC were not connected to the Stelae People. I am guessing that the San Juan Ante Portam Latinam people might be some of the ancestors of the Basques. I don't want get dogmatic about it, because we need more data. But I'm just making a suggestion.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 01:54:51 PM by Jean M » Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #80 on: June 30, 2012, 01:55:19 PM »

what does 'west Asian' .Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies. 

The name of the clusters is not as important as who they match with. If you compare the last 3 dodecad runs you will also see some variance between k7-k12 and the latest k10a, however there is an Eastern affinity[Gedrosia-West_Asia/"Balochi" ]in areas that are relatively high in R1b.
Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #81 on: June 30, 2012, 01:55:32 PM »

what does 'west Asian' .Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies. 

That terminology is not used in studies, but by Genome Bloggers such as Polako, Dienekes, etc. They are simply naming the clusters where they peak, or how they think it is appropriate to name them.
 

What would be better names for them?
Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #82 on: June 30, 2012, 02:00:11 PM »

what does 'west Asian' Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies.  

That just refers to where a high level of the "component" is found. It doesn't necessarily mean that the component spread from there. For example the Caucasus seems to have been first settled in the Neolithic from the Near East, and to have retained a pretty high level of Neolithic Y-DNA haplogroups such as G, because it hasn't been overrun subsequently to the same high degree as many other places (despite some IE and Turkic speakers settling there.) So the "Caucasian" element could be seen as broadly Neolithic, though nowhere today will be 100% Neolithic.    

Anything labelled North or NE European/Baltic is going to be pretty similar to the distribution of MtDNA U5.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 02:10:10 PM by Jean M » Logged
alan trowel hands.
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2012


« Reply #83 on: June 30, 2012, 02:18:43 PM »

what does 'west Asian' Caucasian' etc mean.  I find the terminology a bit odd in these studies.  

That just refers to where a high level of the "component" is found. It doesn't necessarily mean that the component spread from there. For example the Caucasus seems to have been first settled in the Neolithic from the Near East, and to have retained a pretty high level of Neolithic Y-DNA haplogroups such as G, because it hasn't been overrun subsequently to the same high degree as many other places (despite some IE and Turkic speakers settling there.) So the "Caucasian" element could be seen as broadly Neolithic, though nowhere today will be 100% Neolithic.    

Anything labelled North or NE European/Baltic is going to be pretty similar to the distribution of MtDNA U5.

So if Caucasian is possible Neolithic then what do you make of Med.? 
Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #84 on: June 30, 2012, 02:43:35 PM »

 The "component" refers to matching snp's with reference populations.
Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #85 on: June 30, 2012, 03:23:57 PM »

So if Caucasian is possible Neolithic then what do you make of Med.? 

I would expect any component notably high in the Mediterranean (north and south) to have quite a bit of Neolithic input in it too, but including more of the Y-haplogroup E people, who barely appear at all in the Caucasus.

To be honest I haven't really given a lot of time to analyzing these autosomal playthings. I can see that they are a lot of fun, but I feel on more solid ground with haplogroups that one can track through ancient DNA. The two hunters from La Brana-Arintero, Leon 5000 BC who turned out to be more like northern Europeans autosomally than modern Iberians were U5b2c1. You know where you are with that. :)
Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2012, 03:34:03 PM »

… The two hunters from La Brana-Arintero, Leon 5000 BC who turned out to be more like northern Europeans autosomally than modern Iberians were U5b2c1. You know where you are with that. :)

Actually the two Mesolithic HG from La Braña turned out to be most similar to NW Europeans, or more specifically folks from Great Britain and CEU(Utah whites of NW European descent), yet they are still closer overall to Iberians than to Finns. Last I checked Finns are heavy on U5b, in fact here is a map of the distribution of U5b from a study published by Cardoso.et.al.2011



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-wpQPY5zWDpc/Tf9ZD_MworI/AAAAAAAAAlo/z3p1m0xIQNM/s1600/mtDNA_U5b.jpg

So there must be something else that made  NW Europeans similar to Mesolithic Iberians. 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 03:35:19 PM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #87 on: June 30, 2012, 03:50:20 PM »

So there must be something else that made  NW Europeans similar to Mesolithic Iberians....

Naturally. The autosomal similarity is drawn from a whole lot of SNPs that are quite separate from the mitochondrial genome. What I am saying is that I prefer to deal with the latter. We can see more clearly what is happening with non-recombining markers. We can follow their trail in ancient DNA. We can get some idea of migrations from them. An amorphous mass of recombining DNA - the result of millennia of mixture - is a load of fog by comparison.

I can guess that the Mesolithic Iberians are more similar to modern people in the British Isles than to the Finns, because the Finns have an input from East Asia not present in the British/Irish or Mesolithic Iberians. But I'd rather prove this with haplogroups than mess around with guesswork.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 03:54:44 PM by Jean M » Logged
JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #88 on: June 30, 2012, 04:07:33 PM »

I can guess that the Mesolithic Iberians are more similar to modern people in the British Isles than to the Finns, because the Finns have an input from East Asia not present in the British/Irish or Mesolithic Iberians. But I'd rather prove this with haplogroups than mess around with guesswork.


For what is worth, some of the Basques (Guipuzcoa, Navarra, Vizcaya) + Gascons have the highest percentage of U5b after Finns. Also the earliest mt-DNA U5 was found in Eralla, Guipuzcoa dating back to 12000 ybp.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 04:09:14 PM by JeanL » Logged
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #89 on: June 30, 2012, 04:37:42 PM »

For what is worth, some of the Basques (Guipuzcoa, Navarra, Vizcaya) + Gascons have the highest percentage of U5b after Finns.

Yes - I have mentioned that in my text. The section on the Basques has had a revamp on computer after the version you may have seen online. I am now tentatively arguing for a mixture of DNA strata in the Basques, so to speak. No European population is likely to be 100% anything. 
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2012, 09:36:59 PM »

Quote from: alan trowel hands.
I realise some would say 'well how did R1b get to Iberia and predominate so much if it was not there in the beginning?'.

This doesn't directly apply to the whole of Spain, but I think you'll find it useful.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25614

It talks about why r1b ended up dominating western Europe. They also suggest that women came too.
Logged
princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2012, 10:31:33 PM »

Quote from: Jean M
So the "Caucasian" element could be seen as broadly Neolithic, though nowhere today will be 100% Neolithic...

I would expect any component notably high in the Mediterranean (north and south) to have quite a bit of Neolithic input in it too

Polako and dienekes, especially, have been pushing the idea that there were two migrations from the middle east to europe. Based on what was "missing" in the previous inhabitants of Europe they think that "Mediterranean", such as otzi, came with the neolithic and "West Asian", which is not found in otzi, came with post neolithic migrations. (And based on what you said there are two neolithic types in ME"). Ironically, though, otzi is rich in "caucasus" from the k=12 run.

I think dienekes is choosing which components are "missing" in a very arbitrary way to support his vision. I also dont see anything scientific when he or polako makes a claim about some small component that's "missing". Do we actually know how these clusters come about as people change over time... I don't think.

Anyways, you shouldn't write off autosomal study for good. Eventually, we might be able to create ancient clusters and thus infer decent the correct way.

There's also this, which might be spotting actual autosomal decent.

http://www.cmap.polytechnique.fr/~anr-manege/CIRM2012/Talks_PPGE/Ralph.pdf



« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 12:56:02 AM by princenuadha » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2012, 10:51:25 PM »

From what I have seen of that La Braña study, and from Dienekes' comments on it, those two Mesolithic skeletons aren't closely related to any modern humans. They are closer to Northern Europeans than to Southern Europeans, but closer is a relative term. Tokyo is closer to where I live than Beijing is, but neither of them is what I would call close.
Logged

JeanL
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 425


« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2012, 11:39:34 PM »

The reason why the two Mesolithic Iberians aren't within the modern European variation when plotted in a PCA Worldwide, is because they are 7000 years old, that is 7000 years worth of mutations occuring, which would drift the genome of modern Europeans away from the Hunter Gatherers, and make the Hunter Gatherers appear closer to African and Asians relative to Europeans.

Also, they aren't closer to all Northern Europeans.

Dodecad K12b Results for the La Braña Hunter Gatherers:

45% Atlantic_Med
41.6% North_European
10.3% East_African
1% Sub_Saharan.

The Dodecad K12b Oracle results:

DodecadOracle(c(0,0,0,0,45,41.6,0,10.3,0,0,0,1),k= 65)
[,1] [,2]
[1,] "British_Isles_D" "15.0083"
[2,] "British_D" "15.5824"
[3,] "Cornwall_1KG" "15.6183"
[4,] "Kent_1KG" "15.6601"
[5,] "English_D" "15.8028"
[6,] "CEU30" "15.9031"
[7,] "French_D" "16.3117"
[8,] "Irish_D" "16.3181"
[9,] "French" "16.5142"
[10,] "Orcadian" "16.5484"
[11,] "Dutch_D" "16.7126"
[12,] "Orkney_1KG" "16.7215"
[13,] "Argyll_1KG" "17.5029"
[14,] "Mixed_Germanic_D" "17.6445"
[15,] "Norwegian_D" "20.687"
[16,] "German_D" "21.1393"
[17,] "Swedish_D" "23.3724"
[18,] "Cataluna_1KG" "24.1348"
[19,] "Galicia_1KG" "25.1992"
[20,] "Cantabria_1KG" "25.5842"
[21,] "Spanish_D" "26.0354"
[22,] "Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG" "26.2402"
[23,] "Extremadura_1KG" "26.3443"
[24,] "Spaniards" "26.4142"
[25,] "Portuguese_D" "26.4208"
[26,] "Valencia_1KG" "27.3909"
[27,] "Baleares_1KG" "27.4964"
[28,] "Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG" "27.5349"
[29,] "Aragon_1KG" "27.5717"
[30,] "Hungarians" "27.6812"
[31,] "Murcia_1KG" "29.0618"
[32,] "Canarias_1KG" "30.6531"
[33,] "Andalucia_1KG" "30.9693"
[34,] "N_Italian_D" "32.0387"
[35,] "Pais_Vasco_1KG" "32.5157"
[36,] "North_Italian" "32.7267"
[37,] "Polish_D" "36.2155"
[38,] "Romanians" "37.5155"
[39,] "Bulgarians_Y" "39.1224"
[40,] "O_Italian_D" "39.2311"
[41,] "TSI30" "39.2552"
[42,] "Bulgarian_D" "39.568"
[43,] "French_Basque" "39.9123"
[44,] "Mixed_Slav_D" "40.2361"
[45,] "Ukranians_Y" "40.3803"
[46,] "Tuscan" "41.0797"
[47,] "Belorussian" "42.5392"
[48,] "Russian_D" "42.7715"
[49,] "Russian" "43.6318"
[50,] "C_Italian_D" "44.1114"
[51,] "Russian_B" "44.2622"
[52,] "Mordovians_Y" "44.3544"
[53,] "FIN30" "46.2514"
[54,] "Lithuanian_D" "47.0082"
[55,] "Chuvashs" "47.3263"
[56,] "Finnish_D" "48.0451"
[57,] "Greek_D" "48.6433"
[58,] "Lithuanians" "49.1125"
[59,] "Sicilian_D" "52.0655"
[60,] "S_Italian_Sicilian_D" "52.2922"
[61,] "Sardinian" "54.4529"
[62,] "Ashkenazi_D" "54.5316"
[63,] "Ashkenazy_Jews" "54.9017"
[64,] "Morocco_Jews" "57.913"
[65,] "Sephardic_Jews" "58.9986"

In terms of closeness it goes roughly NW Europeans>Western Scandinavians/Germans>Iberians>North Italians>Eastern Europeans>NorthEastern Europeans>Greeks and South Italians.

Logged
Maliclavelli
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2151


« Reply #94 on: July 01, 2012, 12:50:37 AM »

The reason why the two Mesolithic Iberians aren't within the modern European variation when plotted in a PCA Worldwide, is because they are 7000 years old, that is 7000 years worth of mutations occuring, which would drift the genome of modern Europeans away from the Hunter Gatherers, and make the Hunter Gatherers appear closer to African and Asians relative to Europeans.
Also, they aren't closer to all Northern Europeans.

[...]

In terms of closeness it goes roughly NW Europeans>Western Scandinavians/Germans>Iberians>North Italians>Eastern Europeans>NorthEastern Europeans>Greeks and South Italians.

Very good, JeanL. I could add that 7000 years ago those hunter-gatherers of North Iberia were going to be pushed northwards by the “Italian” agriculturalists disembarked near Valencia region and Portugal where there is also to-day some R-L51 (see the RRocca’s map). Anyway they all were Europeans and descended from European hunter-gatherers.

Logged

Maliclavelli


YDNA: R-S12460


MtDNA: K1a1b1e

princenuadha
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


« Reply #95 on: July 01, 2012, 01:15:06 AM »

The reason why the two Mesolithic Iberians aren't within the modern European variation when plotted in a PCA Worldwide, is because they are 7000 years old, that is 7000 years worth of mutations occuring, which would drift the genome of modern Europeans away from the Hunter Gatherers, and make the Hunter Gatherers appear closer to African and Asians relative to Europeans.

Also, they aren't closer to all Northern Europeans.

Dodecad K12b Results for the La Braña Hunter Gatherers:

45% Atlantic_Med
41.6% North_European
10.3% East_African
1% Sub_Saharan.

...


Jeanlohizun I assume. Wow, that is incredible. If the results are mostly reliable the way we hope they are, then western hg lineages did survive given the closer relation to the west!!! It also means we, or some of us have to rethink what "northwestern European" means.

Gok4 had a good chunk of "northwestern" along with "southwestern" and "southeastern". Now that "northwestern" seems to have a good amount of meso, I wonder where the trb came from.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 01:19:14 AM by princenuadha » Logged
acekon
Old Hand
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 152


« Reply #96 on: July 01, 2012, 01:58:33 AM »

7000 years ago, was R1b in the Iberian Peninsula?

La Brana, rough breakdown

45%- Atlantic_Med found in French Basque @73.1%
41.6%-North_European found in Lithuanians @ 77.1%
10.3%-East_African found in Somalians @ 69.9%
1%-Sub_Saharan found in Yoruba @100%

However the French Basque in  k12b have no East African[Somalia] or Sub_Saharan[Yoruba].  However they do have 9.8% "Gedrosia" which peaks around Balochi/Brahui. So  what happened to the African components 7000 years ago?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 02:06:19 AM by acekon » Logged

YDNA: R-Z2105* Śląsk-Polska
MtDNA: U5b2a2*Königsberg-Ostpreussen
Jean M
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1253


« Reply #97 on: July 01, 2012, 04:19:39 AM »

Ironically, though, otzi is rich in "caucasus" from the k=12 run.

Not ironic at all. Otzi is Y-DNA haplogroup G, which was the predominant haplogroup in a large part of Neolithic Europe, to judge by the way it keeps coming up in aDNA. Now it is at a low level in most of Europe, but high in the Caucasus. His Y-DNA is G2a2b (L91), which is rare in most of Europe today  - running at less than 1% across the European mainland. Only on two relatively isolated islands does a substantial reservoir of his haplogroup survive: 25% in southern Corsica and 9% in northern Sardinia. Looking at his whole genome, Ötzi clusters closest to the modern-day people of Sardinia.

This "component" chasing has people running round in circles.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 04:47:30 AM by Jean M » Logged
rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #98 on: July 01, 2012, 06:19:29 AM »

7000 years ago, was R1b in the Iberian Peninsula? . . .

I doubt it.


Logged

rms2
Board Moderator
Guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5023


« Reply #99 on: July 01, 2012, 06:29:19 AM »

7,000 years is a long time, but those Mesolithic skeletons are as likely to be outside the range of modern variation because they have no modern descendants (or share no reasonably close ancestor with modern humans) as that their differences are the product of drift.

It seems to me some folks are attempting to parlay some extremely tenuous autosomal resemblances into an argument for continuity in NW Europe. If anything, these results argue for discontinuity, at least with the Mesolithic population of Europe.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 06:30:57 AM by rms2 » Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.143 seconds with 19 queries.