World Families Forums

General Forums - Note: You must Be Logged In to post. Anyone can browse. => R1b General => Topic started by: Bren123 on October 05, 2012, 12:04:25 PM



Title: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Bren123 on October 05, 2012, 12:04:25 PM
How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reason I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with is quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Mkk on October 05, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
Proto-Indo-European includes words for many things that didn't exist in Paleolithic times. Therefore proto-IE must have existed before then.

As for Sykes et. al, their theories in regards to European origins are outdated now.



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 05, 2012, 12:33:52 PM
I think the idea of R1b having Paleolithic Continuity in Europe has been slaughtered once again.

There is a brand new paper reviewing the Y chromosome haplogroups.
"A calibrated human Y-chromosomal phylogeny based on resequencing" by Wei.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112

Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

The concept that R1b was among the Cro-Magnon folks of Old Stone Age Europe just isn't proven out - once again. Even the early Neolithic may be too early.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: inver2b1 on October 05, 2012, 12:41:54 PM
So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: A_Wode on October 05, 2012, 12:58:13 PM
So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

This is one of the things that has puzzled me about YDNA since I started looking at the distributions. There does seem to be some male sexual selection at work. Why are I1 and R1b by far the most dominant Y lineages in western Europe? Why I1 and not I2b1 or I2a1?

In particular why was R1b-P312 successful in southern Europe where as I2a1, who has very similar distribution in the south not successful? Why was I1 successful and not I2b1 in the north of Europe?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 05, 2012, 01:03:09 PM
@ Bren

Paleolithic Continuity Theory is the work of one former academic, Mario Alinei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Alinei), who has no supporters among linguists specialising in Indo-European languages as far as I know. PCT is so staggeringly far from the mainstream that I ended up not bothering to mention it in my coverage of debates on PIE.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 05, 2012, 01:11:22 PM
So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

It varies over Europe. In the north-west it looks mainly like families spreading into areas that had become thinly-populated because of farming failures. In places where farming was still thriving, R1b seems to have filtered in, not forming a majority. In aDNA we see a few new mtDNA haplogroups arriving with R1b in the Copper Age. Mainly though it seems that the IE incomers were carrying a mixture of Mesolithic and Neolithic haplogroups already known over most of Europe, so working out the degree of mixture with existing peoples is not easy on mtDNA alone. Y-DNA is the big, fat trail. But that does not necessarily mean that it was only men moving.     


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 05, 2012, 01:20:01 PM
@ A_Wode

You might be interested in The Story of I (http://The Story of I). I don't claim to have all the answers, but some ideas have turned out to be supported (so far) by aDNA.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: inver2b1 on October 05, 2012, 01:30:09 PM
So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

It varies over Europe. In the north-west it looks mainly like families spreading into areas that had become thinly-populated because of farming failures. In places where farming was still thriving, R1b seems to have filtered in, not forming a majority. In aDNA we see a few new mtDNA haplogroups arriving with R1b in the Copper Age. Mainly though it seems that the IE incomers were carrying a mixture of Mesolithic and Neolithic haplogroups already known over most of Europe, so working out the degree of mixture with existing peoples is not easy on mtDNA alone. Y-DNA is the big, fat trail. But that does not necessarily mean that it was only men moving.     

Thanks, then again modern proportions don't mean they were the same back then.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: A_Wode on October 05, 2012, 01:54:36 PM

Thanks, then again modern proportions don't mean they were the same back then.

The aDNA from the Canary islands would support this. Several of the remains were tested hg I. (I2a1?) Perhaps also the Sardinians would be another good example who have retained more of the original founders.

Many of the ancient German remains have yielded both R1b, and variations of I (I2b1? I2b2?) yet those levels are quite low in Germany today, especially I2b2.

@Jean

Thanks. I do check your site once in awhile, but I don't think I read that article. I will take a look.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 05, 2012, 03:42:06 PM
How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!
Proto-Indo-European includes words for many things that didn't exist in Paleolithic times. Therefore proto-IE must have existed before then.

As for Sykes et. al, their theories in regards to European origins are outdated now.



I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

He did say in his 2006 book that the paternal and maternal histories of the Isles were different, that the mtDNA of the isles was more ancient and showed more continuity than the Y-DNA. On the maternal side he argued for a large-scale movement up the Atlantic seaboard from Iberia in the Neolithic and I have yet to be convinced that he was wrong on this point.

My understanding is that mtDNA is much harder to date than Y-DNA so we are relying on a small number of ancient DNA samples to build a picture of mtDNA genetic origins.





Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 05, 2012, 04:19:34 PM
I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

Mark Jobling is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe with Neolithic farmers.

Mark Thomas is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic farmers.

It is best to judge who is right on the basis of the evidence.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 05, 2012, 04:23:35 PM
My understanding is that mtDNA is much harder to date than Y-DNA so we are relying on a small number of ancient DNA samples to build a picture of mtDNA genetic origins.

Not really. Dating by mutation rate is a problem overall. It is no more difficult in mtDNA than Y-DNA.

We now have hundreds of samples of mtDNA from ancient DNA - certainly enough to be sure that Sykes was wrong in Seven Daughters of Eve. That conclusion has been supported so far from those few full genomes (or a large part thereof) from ancient DNA. Mesolithic Iberians did not resemble modern Iberians, or indeed any modern Europeans very closely.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Heber on October 05, 2012, 07:15:46 PM
So what does the expansion of R1b represent: some form of overall population replacement or a male dominated expansion?

This is one of the things that has puzzled me about YDNA since I started looking at the distributions. There does seem to be some male sexual selection at work. Why are I1 and R1b by far the most dominant Y lineages in western Europe? Why I1 and not I2b1 or I2a1?

In particular why was R1b-P312 successful in southern Europe where as I2a1, who has very similar distribution in the south not successful? Why was I1 successful and not I2b1 in the north of Europe?

Is there a suggestion here in the Wei Wei paper that R1b had a male sexual reproduction advantage. I am not familiar with USP9Y. Can someone comment?

"Although this study was not aimed at investigating Y gene function, it was striking that a variant predicted to be highly damaging to protein structure was discovered in the USP9Y gene. USP9Y loss of function has been associated with variable phenotypes ranging from azoospermia to oligoasthenoteratozoospermia and normal sperm production (Tyler-Smith and Krausz 2009). The transmission of this variant through three generations demonstrates that it is compatible with male fertility, providing further evidence for the phenotypic diversity linked to variation in this gene."

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112.full.pdf



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Heber on October 05, 2012, 07:19:57 PM
I think the idea of R1b having Paleolithic Continuity in Europe has been slaughtered once again.

There is a brand new paper reviewing the Y chromosome haplogroups.
"A calibrated human Y-chromosomal phylogeny based on resequencing" by Wei.
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2012/10/04/gr.143198.112

Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

The concept that R1b was among the Cro-Magnon folks of Old Stone Age Europe just isn't proven out - once again. Even the early Neolithic may be too early.

That would make it circa 8.5 thousand years ago which supports the Neolithic expansion model out of Anatolia. It will be interesting to see the other two papers from the Tyler Smith team which uses the much larger Dataset from the 1000 Genome project. I understand they came to the same conclusion.

"The third internal node was that of R1b, a well-documented expansion in Europe, but with a much-debated time depth. Here, we estimate a time of 4.3-13 KYA, the most uncertain of the dates. Despite the range of estimates, all these dates favor a Neolithic (Balaresque et al. 2010) more than a Paleolithic (Semino et al. 2000) or Mesolithic expansion of this lineage."



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Bren123 on October 05, 2012, 09:13:48 PM
@ Bren

Paleolithic Continuity Theory is the work of one former academic, Mario Alinei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Alinei), who has no supporters among linguists specialising in Indo-European languages as far as I know. PCT is so staggeringly far from the mainstream that I ended up not bothering to mention it in my coverage of debates on PIE.

The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think tha this theory has support from quite a few academics!


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 05, 2012, 09:18:41 PM
Quote from: Wei
... the node representing the major European Y lineage, R1b, to 4-13 thousand years ago, supporting a Neolithic origin for these modern European Y chromosomes

That would make it circa 8.5 thousand years ago which supports the Neolithic expansion model out of Anatolia. It will be interesting to see the other two papers from the Tyler Smith team which uses the much larger Dataset from the 1000 Genome project. I understand they came to the same conclusion.

"The third internal node was that of R1b, a well-documented expansion in Europe, but with a much-debated time depth. Here, we estimate a time of 4.3-13 KYA, the most uncertain of the dates. Despite the range of estimates, all these dates favor a Neolithic (Balaresque et al. 2010) more than a Paleolithic (Semino et al. 2000) or Mesolithic expansion of this lineage."

Not quite. The new Wei study did not estimated 8.5k ybp. Wei showed a table which you should look at in more detail. This what it said for R1b in terms of thousands of years before presentK. There were five  methods used by Wei.
9K + or -1.8
13K + or - 2.3
11.2K + or - 4
4.3K + or - .5
4.5K + or - .3

The last two methods were "Rho-1" and "Rho-2", but look at the numbers ....   only 2500 BC or so.

Providing the midpoint of the maximum versus the mininum age don't necessarily give you the best answer. The real question is which method is best?  I don't know.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: wing_genealogist on October 06, 2012, 02:04:38 AM
How do you access the tables and figures? I know some are not yet available, but it is clear others are.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 02:50:58 AM
I don't think we should completely dismiss Bryan Sykes, he is/was after all a Professor of Genetics.

Mark Jobling is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe with Neolithic farmers.

Mark Thomas is a Professor of Genetics. He thinks R1b arrived in Europe after the Neolithic farmers.

It is best to judge who is right on the basis of the evidence.

Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA. As regards ancient DNA I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 02:56:40 AM
Jean M,

Quote
Not really. Dating by mutation rate is a problem overall. It is no more difficult in mtDNA than Y-DNA.

Why is there so much focus on Y-DNA then? 95% of the posts on this website must be in R1b and subclades. Why so little discussion of mtDNA, given that it's half the people.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: princenuadha on October 06, 2012, 03:45:56 AM
@ avalon

The distributions of ydna produce much more interesting maps. The mtdna looks far more diffuse... whereas for ydna its easier to see migration trails.

That is not to say that women weren't traveling with the men many times. Closer looks at mtdna reveal a lot of discontinuity of female lines in Europe around the neolithic and metal ages. But what makes ydna so interesting is that it has a greater selective pressure on it (separate from polygamy), meaning more lines disappear leaving others, even new ones, to rapidly grow within the population. As a result, groups of travelers can easily be carrying the same hg, and very different from their neighbors.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: stoneman on October 06, 2012, 04:32:09 AM
WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.





How many scholars if any,support the thoery of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory?
The reasdon I'm asking is because this person I'm having a discussion with his quoting people like Sykes and others to support the theory!


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 05:02:27 AM
Is there a suggestion here in the Wei Wei paper that R1b had a male sexual reproduction advantage. I am not familiar with USP9Y. Can someone comment?

I am not familiar with it either, but the authors are saying that the mutation is expected to be damaging, yet they found it in a family passed down from father to son, so it clearly did not stop reproduction in that case.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 05:09:12 AM
WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 05:17:59 AM
The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think that this theory has support from quite a few academics!

Who are these academics? I'm mystified.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 05:36:57 AM
Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA.

My memory is not my strong point, so I'd have to re-read Blood of the Isles and make notes to tell you what still stands up. I do know that the idea of different maternal and paternal histories has been common in recent papers by authors who have recognised that R1b is not all that ancient in Europe, but who were composing their papers prior to the publication of ancient DNA papers showing the sharp break in mtDNA between Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Quote
I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.

In fact the population of Europe in the Mesolithic was tiny by comparison with today. The Palaeolithic population of Europe has been estimated at 4400–5900 inhabitants before the Ice Age. That would have been reduced during the Ice Age to the status of an endangered species, hanging on in a few refugia. That is why Mesolithic Europeans are so similar to each other. They are the descendants of tiny communities, who could fan out across Europe once more as the glaciers retreated. I don't think we really need to test every single one of the few thousand of them to assure ourselves of that. The samples that we have are telling a consistent story.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 07:05:55 AM
@ avalon

The distributions of ydna produce much more interesting maps. The mtdna looks far more diffuse... whereas for ydna its easier to see migration trails.

That is not to say that women weren't traveling with the men many times. Closer looks at mtdna reveal a lot of discontinuity of female lines in Europe around the neolithic and metal ages. But what makes ydna so interesting is that it has a greater selective pressure on it (separate from polygamy), meaning more lines disappear leaving others, even new ones, to rapidly grow within the population. As a result, groups of travelers can easily be carrying the same hg, and very different from their neighbors.

Thanks prince,

Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

On mtDNA, if it is quite diffuse in Europe, then does this suggest that there is more continuity than with male lines? Patrilocality - the idea that women move short distances to live with new husbands supports a theory of a more stable female population. Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 07:22:06 AM
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history

No. It just so happens that Y-DNA haplogroups that were located mainly in one small corner of Europe in the Late Neolithic spread all over Europe in the Copper Age. By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.

Although violence is a fact of life, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about the way in which haplogroups spread. In some cases there is a clear break visible in the archaeology between late Neolithic and incomers in the Copper Age.    

Quote
Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?

Patrilocality seems pretty common and probably the norm from the Copper Age onwards. In Bell Beaker it looks as though men were travelling along Beaker networks to find marriage partners among the scattered Beaker settlements.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 07:28:50 AM
Ok, so even if Sykes was wrong about R1b does that mean we should rule out everything he wrote in his book "Blood of the Isles?"

I was mainly struck by his view of the different maternal and paternal histories of the Isles and his suggestion that there was Neolithic continuity on the mtDNA.

My memory is not my strong point, so I'd have to re-read Blood of the Isles and make notes to tell you what still stands up. I do know that the idea of different maternal and paternal histories has been common in recent papers by authors who have recognised that R1b is not all that ancient in Europe, but who were composing their papers prior to the publication of ancient DNA papers showing the sharp break in mtDNA between Mesolithic and Neolithic.

Quote
I would say that hundreds of samples is a tiny amount when we are looking at 12,000 years of human history and the millions of people that lived in Europe during this time.

In fact the population of Europe in the Mesolithic was tiny by comparison with today. The Palaeolithic population of Europe has been estimated at 4400–5900 inhabitants before the Ice Age. That would have been reduced during the Ice Age to the status of an endangered species, hanging on in a few refugia. That is why Mesolithic Europeans are so similar to each other. They are the descendants of tiny communities, who could fan out across Europe once more as the glaciers retreated. I don't think we really need to test every single one of the few thousand of them to assure ourselves of that. The samples that we have are telling a consistent story.


I must admit I have only recently re-read the conclusion chapter of Blood of the Isles and although he does push for Mesolithic continuity I wonder whether there is a stronger case for mtDNA Neolilithic continuity in Britain and Ireland?

I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

And of course the Neolithic population would have been bigger still.





Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 07:31:13 AM
I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

True. But if all the men and women who scattered from the Ice Age refugia carried mtDNA U, U2, U5 and U4 and derivatives thereof, they could not have offspring of totally different lineages. : )

New lineages would have to come from outside, as they clearly did. We see a bundle of lineages new to Europe among the Neolithic arrivals. Again, we don't really need to sample thousands of them to establish that.

There was a degree of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic on the eastern fringes of Europe.  These foragers adopting farming were few, but it just so happens that their descendants spread over Europe in the Copper Age, bringing back some of the mtDNA U5 that had died out in places in the Neolithic. In the NE mtDNA U5 continued in people who maintained the foraging lifestyle in areas unsuitable for farming. Some U5 seems to have continued through into the Neolithic in a few other places.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 07:44:46 AM
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history

No. It just so happens that Y-DNA haplogroups that were located mainly in one small corner of Europe in the Late Neolithic spread all over Europe in the Copper Age. By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.

Although violence is a fact of life, I wouldn't make too many assumptions about the way in which haplogroups spread. In some cases there is a clear break visible in the archaeology between late Neolithic and incomers in the Copper Age.    

Quote
Is there archaeological evidence that patrilocality was practised or is this a modern assumption?

Patrilocality seems pretty common and probably the norm from the Copper Age onwards. In Bell Beaker it looks as though men were travelling along Beaker networks to find marriage partners among the scattered Beaker settlements.

So it does appear then that some modern mtDNA in Europe goes back further than the Y-DNA , probably to the Neolithic and we are using ancient DNA to demonstrate this.

As regards to patrilocality, forgive my ignorance but what evidence does an archaeologist use to show that it was practised in prehistoric times?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 07:47:51 AM
As regards to patrilocality, forgive my ignorance but what evidence does an archaeologist use to show that it was practised in prehistoric times?

There are two lines of evidence here: linguistics and isotope studies. The latter has been  used by archaeologists to show patrilocality in Bell Beaker. One linguistic study indicated the IE speakers were patrilocal.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 07:55:51 AM
So it does appear then that some modern mtDNA in Europe goes back further than the Y-DNA , probably to the Neolithic and we are using ancient DNA to demonstrate this.

We can show that the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today were in Europe by the Bronze Age in roughly modern proportions. That does not guarantee local continuity. That is the essential problem.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 06, 2012, 08:00:50 AM
I see what you are saying about the small population during the Mesolithic but presumably the estimate of a few thousand is a static figure. If we consider that the Mesolithic lasted 5,000 years then the total number of people that were born, lived and died during that time would be far greater. If we could find their bones there would be way more than just a few thousand samples.

True. But if all the men and women who scattered from the Ice Age refugia carried mtDNA U, U2, U5 and U4 and derivatives thereof, they could not have offspring of totally different lineages. : )

New lineages would have to come from outside, as they clearly did. We see a bundle of lineages new to Europe among the Neolithic arrivals. Again, we don't really need to sample thousands of them to establish that.

There was a degree of genetic continuity from Mesolithic to Neolithic on the eastern fringes of Europe.  These foragers adopting farming were few, but it just so happens that their descendants spread over Europe in the Copper Age, bringing back some of the mtDNA U5 that had died out in places in the Neolithic. In the NE mtDNA U5 continued in people who maintained the foraging lifestyle in areas unsuitable for farming. Some U5 seems to have continued through into the Neolithic in a few other places.

Thanks for info. It is within the realms of possibility though that more ancient DNA samples could uncover different haplogroups in the Mesolithic. And not that we will find their bones but from the Ice Age to the birth of Christ, millions of people could have potentially lived in Europe so it would be nice to see more samples just to check that no stray haplogroups ventured in to prehistoric Europe.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 09:19:54 AM
@ Avalon

We certainly would like as much ancient DNA as we can get.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Bren123 on October 06, 2012, 11:58:52 AM
The reason I asked is because I've been having a very heated debate with someone whom seems to think that this theory has support from quite a few academics!

Who are these academics? I'm mystified.

I've no idea i did ask but he completely dodged the question!


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 12:17:18 PM
@ Bren

I'm not surprised! :)


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: princenuadha on October 06, 2012, 01:28:47 PM
Quote from: avalon
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

Avalon, I have no idea how you read that because it was completely counter to what I was saying : )

I said that there is greater selection pressure on ydna APART of polygamy. Men killing other men, dominating the land/resources, etc., results in polygamy which is not what I used to explain the quicker expansions and and contractions of ydna hg as compared to mtdna hg.

There will be greater selective pressure on the ydna even when the effective (reproducing) male population is equal to women's, as a recent study has shown. And like I said, this selective pressure help to create stronger ydna distinctions between different male populations, which results is more obvious trails of migration. So even if men and women migrate, and also mate in equal numbers, the ydna will still leave a more obvious trail due to the greater selection that occures on the ydna apart from the size of the matting pool.

One hypothetical example would be that m269 made men more likely to "produce" boys instead of girls.

I actually think a lot of women did migrate and replace the populations of other women in pre history. But because women/mtdna don't have the same background selection as men/ydna, the women were already more similar to their neighbors so the replacement wasn't as obvious.

BTW, we know women migrated because of the mtdna discontinuity in the neolithic and metal ages of Europe, but also because of the massive autosomal discontinuity in Europe which surely didn't just happen by men.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: OConnor on October 06, 2012, 05:05:48 PM
WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 



If R1b originated in Europe, then perhaps R1b descended from the Paleolithic people that were here at that time.

Is it a "given" that R1b types are not western European in origin?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Mkk on October 06, 2012, 05:08:58 PM
WE are the descendants of Paleolithic people or else we are all ghosts writing on this forum. The problem that some people have is the place of origin.

Very neatly put. Yes that is the case. 



If R1b originated in Europe, then perhaps R1b descended from the Paleolithic people that were here at that time.

Is it a "given" that R1b types are not western European in origin?
Yes, basically, because all of the earliest forms of R1b are found in Western Eurasia and Eastern Europe.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: OConnor on October 06, 2012, 05:13:45 PM
but what if such early people moved to Eurasia from Europe, and they now do not have our downstream markers. But they still show an early genetic connection to Western European people?

I believe Maliclavelli who posts on this forum could add more to that.

When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Jean M on October 06, 2012, 05:40:18 PM
@ OConnor

Europe and Asia are one continent. It may seem important to people now which side of the modern boundary R1b cropped up, but it didn't matter two hoots to our ancestors way back then. I wouldn't fret over it. Your ancestors way back in the Copper Age didn't. That's for sure. They went where there was good hunting, and later good pasture.

As for where the SNP M343 first occurred - we don't know. I surmise that it could have happened among R1 men who travelled seasonally across the Caspian from winter quarters in the south (in or near what is now Iran) to summer quarters in the north on the steppe near the Urals. Iran has basal types of R1b and R1a which suggests that the split took place there or close. I surmise that some R1a men decided to settle on the steppe, while some R1b men decided to stay in the south and so got involved earlier in farming. It certainly looks as though one R1b lineage (V88) was among people who took farming to North Africa from the Levant. I surmise that another R1b lineage helped to bring dairy farming into what is now Europe and so met up once again with its distant cousin R1a in SE Europe. But this is conjecture.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Mike Walsh on October 06, 2012, 06:31:40 PM
....
When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??
I'm not sure that much of the ancient genetics stuff is a "given," but as far as reading about some of the prehistoric migrations/expansions of people from east to west you might try googling some of these topics:

Neolithic Age
Impressed Wares / Cardial Wares Pottery Culture
Linear Pottery Culture / LBK
Bronze Age
Chalcolithic Age
Proto-Indo-Europeans


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: A.D. on October 06, 2012, 10:44:03 PM
there was some  neolthic stuff, axes i think found on top of mesolithic stuff found in the north sea, doggerland, on the same site. it was thought to be a sacred meso. religous site adopted by later people after it flooded. there types of fishing traps of the meso type that are used still to day. This info is acouple of years old. I think it is a case of prolonged interaction rather than genetic continuity. Pesonally I think meso fishing comunities hung on quite a while in the N sea area because they had better knowledge of the area and its changes.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: OConnor on October 07, 2012, 09:39:14 AM
....
When was the Eurasian/European split?..and which way did people migrate at that time..east?..or west??
I'm not sure that much of the ancient genetics stuff is a "given," but as far as reading about some of the prehistoric migrations/expansions of people from east to west you might try googling some of these topics:

Neolithic Age
Impressed Wares / Cardial Wares Pottery Culture
Linear Pottery Culture / LBK
Bronze Age
Chalcolithic Age
Proto-Indo-Europeans

I am not making a great stance on the idea..it's just a question that came to my mind. I was thinking more Paleolithic and not later Neolithic and such.

Is it at all possible the list you provided have been a back-flow of people who had moved from west to east earlier?





Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: avalon on October 07, 2012, 01:29:08 PM
Quote from: avalon
Ok, so we can discern more from Y-DNA because of the way that men behave in history - eg, killing other men over land and resources; perhaps expanding in male only groups and taking local wives; successful men outbreeding others so that their Y-DNA quickly comes to dominate a region, etc?

Avalon, I have no idea how you read that because it was completely counter to what I was saying : )

I said that there is greater selection pressure on ydna APART of polygamy. Men killing other men, dominating the land/resources, etc., results in polygamy which is not what I used to explain the quicker expansions and and contractions of ydna hg as compared to mtdna hg.

There will be greater selective pressure on the ydna even when the effective (reproducing) male population is equal to women's, as a recent study has shown. And like I said, this selective pressure help to create stronger ydna distinctions between different male populations, which results is more obvious trails of migration. So even if men and women migrate, and also mate in equal numbers, the ydna will still leave a more obvious trail due to the greater selection that occures on the ydna apart from the size of the matting pool.

One hypothetical example would be that m269 made men more likely to "produce" boys instead of girls.

I actually think a lot of women did migrate and replace the populations of other women in pre history. But because women/mtdna don't have the same background selection as men/ydna, the women were already more similar to their neighbors so the replacement wasn't as obvious.

BTW, we know women migrated because of the mtdna discontinuity in the neolithic and metal ages of Europe, but also because of the massive autosomal discontinuity in Europe which surely didn't just happen by men.

It looks like I misunderstood your earlier post - I am fairly new to this!

So are we saying that a mutation within a y-dna haplogroup made men more likely to produce male offspring? What other selective pressures are there on Y-DNA?


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: JeanL on November 19, 2012, 11:11:52 PM
By contrast most of the mtDNA haplogroups common in Europe today, and particularly the most common of all (H), had arrived over most of Europe by the end of the Neolithic. So mtDNA shows most clearly the break between Mesolithic and Neolithic, while Y-DNA shows most clearly the break between Neolithic and Copper Age.
 

You should know that while you don’t want to include the results from Linatzeta, Deba, Guipuzcoa because according to you they haven’t been tested for contamination (which the results show clearly that there isn’t any contamination issue, unlike other remains tested in that study), well, those remains came from a site found in 2001, so I’m pretty sure, that all precautions were taken to avoid contamination, and the fact that the coding region results point clearly to H, is more than enough to show that contamination isn’t an issue here. Nonetheless, here is yet another study that proves once more that the most common of all mtDNA Haplogroups in Europe (H), had arrived over most of Europe before the Neolithic. Let’s wait and see if you include this one on your Ancient DNA Database.

Page-100 of the study: (http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/74221)

Mesolithic Uznyi Oleni Ostrov/Popovo compared to modern-day Eurasian populations

Mesolithic Uznyi Oleni Ostrov/Popovo clearly stood out of the three main groups of populations on the haplogroup frequency PCA graph (Figure 2), falling between the ‘European’ and ‘east Siberian’ clusters due to its mixed composition of haplogroups defined as ‘European’ (73%): U4 (37%), U2e (18%), U5a (9%), H (9%) and ‘Siberian’ C (27%).


Table-1 of the study:

(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Sarkissianetal2011_Table-1.jpg)

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Sarkissianetal2011_Table-1.jpg

Table-S2 of the study:

(http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Table-S2.jpg)

http://i1133.photobucket.com/albums/m582/jeanlohizun/Table-S2.jpg

So there it is fellows, UZOO-77 dating to 7500 ybp, with an HVR-I of 16311C, 16362C is yet another confirmed proof of mt-DNA H in Mesolithic Europeans.



Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Maliclavelli on November 20, 2012, 12:49:36 AM
Not only. I think having demonstrated from many years that also R0, HV (HV1a’b’c, HV4 etc) are European, and also FTDNA recognised this in its last release.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Black Taylor on November 20, 2012, 08:50:18 PM
Coupled with the reports of mtDNA haplogroup H in mesolithic Iberians are early indications of higher Mediterranean autosomal DNA components in the La Brana mesolithic Iberian individuals, at more than double what was observed in the Swedish hunter-gatherers that were sequenced this year.  See:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/06/mesolithic-iberians-la-brana-arintero.html
and note 45% atlantic-mediterranean value versus:

http://dienekes.blogspot.ca/2012/04/first-look-at-dna-of-neolithic.html
Where the hunters average <20% atlantic-mediterranean

While the Swedish hunters were "more northern" than modern north Europeans, the La Brana individuals plot (on some PC dimensions) more like modern British, who are presumably an admixed hunter-farmer population.

Evidence is mounting for pre-neolithic boat travel and trade across the mediterranean, spanning an enormous time period and significant distances:

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-anthropologist-mediterranean-islands-inhabited-earlier.html

Even simply shore-hopping on canoes, the natural consequence of this pre-neolithic movement would be gene flow across the basin, largely following trade and resource exploitation networks.  We all envision a massive population replacement across the mesolithic/neolithic divide because of contrasting population densities.  However who was replacing who?

If the mediterranean acted more like a gene exchange highway throughout prehistory, then at the mesolithic/neolithic transition in places like Iberia, Italy, Greece, northern Africa etc you would see an already mixed paleo-european with eastern mediterranean input mesolithic population being replaced and/or absorbed by another mixed population  of predominantly eastern mediterranean origin with some paleolithic european input.

The neolithic because of the higher population densities involved and incentives to migrate en masse, mostly from east to west, would accelerate this process rather than start it for the first time, and fix the final mixture with a much more eastern flavour.  I feel under this model of "long-term trickle then neolithic flood", you would actually expect things like mtDNA H (and dare we say some R1b) to be showing up in individuals all around the mediterranean from the mesolithic period.  The recent autosomal and mtDNA findings seem to support this model.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Heber on November 21, 2012, 09:17:05 AM

Evidence is mounting for pre-neolithic boat travel and trade across the mediterranean, spanning an enormous time period and significant distances:

http://phys.org/news/2012-11-anthropologist-mediterranean-islands-inhabited-earlier.html

Even simply shore-hopping on canoes, the natural consequence of this pre-neolithic movement would be gene flow across the basin, largely following trade and resource exploitation networks.  We all envision a massive population replacement across the mesolithic/neolithic divide because of contrasting population densities.  However who was replacing who?

If the mediterranean acted more like a gene exchange highway throughout prehistory, then at the mesolithic/neolithic transition in places like Iberia, Italy, Greece, northern Africa etc you would see an already mixed paleo-european with eastern mediterranean input mesolithic population being replaced and/or absorbed by another mixed population  of predominantly eastern mediterranean origin with some paleolithic european input.



I agree with your analysis that the Meditteranean acted like a gene exchange highway.
This could be reflected in Cardial Ware Culture migration path and later Maritine Bell Beaker and Phoenician trading routes..

http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534764248816/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534764248594/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837988/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763179592/
http://pinterest.com/pin/32721534763837986/


It is interesting to see the position of H in the Der Sarkessian paper, clustered with Atlantic Europe, The Isles and Iberia.

http://dienekes.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/u7-in-rostov-scythians.html


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Black Taylor on November 21, 2012, 08:32:41 PM
Excellent maps Heber, it's remarkable how the inferred migration/trade routes match up for Bell Beaker and the much later Phoenicians.  For that matter you can imagine the various shoreline promontories, bays, islands, river mouths and other coastal features would attract attention from seafarers of any time period, the pattern repeating itself over time in all ages.

I live in British Columbia Canada and think about the "pre-neolithic" style coastal communities that were here until just 200 years ago.  There was a very dense population here, probably conservatively hundreds of thousands of people all along the coast and interior waterways.  The coastline was dotted by thousands of inhabited sites, with some villages supporting up to several thousand individuals.  Boat travel and trade were very extensive.  Have a look at this map for reference to what I'm about to mention:

http://www.bcarchives.gov.bc.ca/exhibits/timemach/galler07/images/abbcmapm.jpg

I worked with a group of Tahltan in northern B.C. who have tribal memories of coastal Haida or Nisga'a travelling up to a thousand kilometres all along the coast and far upriver specifically to indulge in a bit of raiding and warfare against them.  So, in what is almost living memory we have records of high populations, long distance sea travel, and extensive trade networks all in a pre-agricultural (pre-neolithic) society of hunter-gatherers.

From the lens of my experience it strains belief that somehow there is a static, unmixed population of uniform paleolithic survivalists all across europe prior to the neolithic, which only the advent of agriculture begins to alter.  This in my mind is the fallacy of "no mtDNA H and no y-DNA R1b before the neolithic" line of argument.  Do people think offshore fishing, whaling, trade and tribal raiding (e.g. for women) originated with agriculture?  People and goods would have been highly mobile, especially by water, and communities all along the mediterranean and atlantic facade and up the major rivers can be expected over time to pick up genes from distant populations.  When have people not been fond of exchanging genes, after all there are 7 billion of us.


Title: Re: Paleolithic Continuity Theory
Post by: Heber on November 22, 2012, 03:40:50 PM
As with the Atlantic and Meditteranean migration routes, the Pacific coastal migration routes were complimentary, not exclusive of land based migrations.

"Pacific models propose that people first reached the Americas via water travel, following coastlines from northeast Asia into the Americas. Coastlines are unusually productive environments because they provide humans with access to a diverse array of plants and animals from both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. While not exclusive of land-based migrations, the Pacific 'coastal migration theory' helps explain how early colonists reached areas extremely distant from the Bering Strait region, including sites such as Monte Verde in southern Chile and Taima-Taima in western Venezuela."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Watercraft_migration_theories