[retrahdggd]

I tend to agree, but I must partly contest this:
In my opinion (as I have stated a few times), while it is true that the bulk of the R1b was brought to Europe with the Indo-European migrations of the Eneolithic/Bronze Age, I think that there was most probably some R1b (without the L11 mutation) in Neolithic Southeast Europe brought about by widely attested (archaeologically) migrations to what is now the Bulgarian Black Sea Coast from northern Anatolia. This, in my opinion, is supported by the frequency of R1b-M269 (xL11) in SE Europe:
Busby_R1b%28xL11%29.jpg

Agreed it's a possibility, but I would see even older subclades in the Neolithic (L23 and upstream). The L11* in Romania and Bulgaria matches the area of the first Indo-European incursions into the Balkans circa 4000-3500 BCE. It may be a leftover from that period rather than from the Neolithic.

[qd0vhq4f]

I don't think the mating with Neanderthals was something important. It was something rather minoritary and occasional. As for the colonisation of Europe, we still can't explain how can R1b be so high in Western-Europe, unless it was a massive colonisation

Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals lived side by side from 50,000 years ago until the disappearance of the latter 28,000 years ago. That's a really long period (twice longer than from the Neolithic to now).

[meteeratymn]

All Europeans have Neanderthal admixture, but it's true we are talking about a few alleles. Not sure about the phenotypical impact, although sometimes I saw people with very curious traits.

A few alleles ? I suppose that you mean a few percent of our genome, which means over one hundred millions alleles !

I am not convinced that the percentage of Neanderthal admixture that emerged from the genome of the Croatian sample is very representative of the overall Neanderthal population. First of all, there were many very different subspecies of Neanderthal living at the same time (at least three in Europe, one in the Middle East and one in Central Asia). Based on the skeletons, these subspecies looked even more different that the most different humans today. We have probably inherited more from some subspecies than others, and if that is the case the Middle Eastern and Central Asian ones are the prime candidates. So until we don't have data for each subspecies, we won't know for sure how much of our genome actually comes from Neanderthal. I think it could well exceed 10%, perhaps as much as 20% in some individuals. I am not the only one to think so. The paleoanthropologist and Neanderthal expert Erik Trinkaus expressed exactly my opinion in an interview for National Geographic.

Trinkhaus adds that most living humans probably have much more Neanderthal DNA than the new study suggests.

"One to 4 percent is truly a minimum," Trinkaus added. "But is it 10 percent? Twenty percent? I have no idea."

[Kalobbis]

No Maciamo, I mean exactly from 5 to 27 alleles in Europeans according to Interpretome, wich considers a maximum number of 84. There's no evidence at the moment for hundreds of millions of alleles. Actually most Neandethal genes I tend to think that have been replaced, although more research would show more discoveries, but I don't expect any surprise in the direction you point.

[grizolsemn]

An answer to this last question is crucial (in the absence of pre-1000 BCE aDNA).

(I'm not sure where this will appear. I'm not talking neanderthals but archaeological cultures)

[Fededorbprago]

I just don't understand one thing and it doesn't make any sense. Let say that maciamo is right and that R1b in Europe is INDO-European. How is it possible then that R1b migrated from Anatolia into Europe after J2a without mixing with local Anatolian J2a? The native J2a is even more dominant than R1b in Anatolia.

If R1b INDO-European migrated out of Anatolia into Western Europe they would bring some J2a with them, since R1b and J2a have always been living together (with & next to each other) in Anatolia, since the very beginning when Central Asian R1b migrated into Anatolia. J2a was in Anatolia even before R1b.

But I think that it's true that some Anatolian Indo-European R1b subclades migrated into Europe.

[luffyplayaz]

I tend to agree with you rather than Dienekes on most things, Maciamo, and you're definitely winning the prediction contest if anybody is keeping score. Still, it's worth taking any individual's speculation with a grain of salt, even someone with as much data in front of him as Dienekes, or you, or Taranis, or anybody. Of course, even if we are to relegate Dienekes' usefulness to a source aggregator, he's nonetheless a very good source aggregator.

Let me say this, any model that anybody here or elsewhere makes is only as good as the data that we have. Everybody of us makes mistakes from time to time (I make and made quite a number of mistakes, I know that ). The part where things make a difference is a) how good our hunch was and b) how we deal with new data and how we adapt or own hypotheses in the face of that.

For instance, Maciamo (and a lot of other people) were absolutely right that Neolithic sites would yield no R1b, but I think nobody genuinely expected before that G2 would be the dominant Neolithic Haplogroup in Europe (people were more expecting E1b and J2).

On that, once we do finally get Beaker-Bell samples, I kind of expect now we will get such a weird right-but-wrong situation again...

Dienekes' definitions in his list of the three models are weird, as you indicate. Migrationism is becoming popular among genetic athropologists who see that idea diffusion and demic diffusion don't fit the data. But migrationism doesn't imply colonalism, that's an absurd jump in logic that nobody but Dienekes seems to hold. People can be migrating intentionally, keeping to their own groups, and making warfare with other groups (obviously not demic diffusion) without anything mirroring colonialism. I also agree that "colonialism" is definitely overhyped in this context, and what we saw in prehistoric times can in no way be compared with the European colonies, or even with the colonies of the Greeks and Phoenicians.

[echocassidyde]

I don't think R1b L11- was what Maciamo was talking about, but you bring up a good point. Still, R1b L11- doesn't mirror other clearly Neolithic haplogroups in Europe (namely G2a). Was this a distinct Neolithic migration from G2a's in your opinion?

I suppose R1b L11- has some similar spots as G2a, but generally, if your map is right, it trends more Eastern, at least. Just drift in favor of G2a as the Neolithic population moved West?

Agreed it's a possibility, but I would see even older subclades in the Neolithic (L23 and upstream). The L11* in Romania and Bulgaria matches the area of the first Indo-European incursions into the Balkans circa 4000-3500 BCE. It may be a leftover from that period rather than from the Neolithic.

Now I consider it, you may be right: L23* tends to correspond much better with G2a, except where we may assume G2a arrived through the Cardium Pottery culture (which is probably where most of the Iberian, French, Sardinian, Corsican and Italian G2a came from) or later, as with the Etruscan G2a:


But what could probably shed some light into this would be a study of, for example, R1b-M412*

[YpciJQdo]

As I already stated often before, I don't know much about genetics and ancient migrations. But Maciamo's theories sound very understandable and reasonable to me, where theories of other people (also Dienekes) often lack explanations. His theories sometimes miss some details, which he admits due to missing data. But he presents possibilities with ranked probabilities (without ridiculing the lower-chance possibilities), so I enjoy reading in the Genetics Forum.

The Neanderthal-Theories are really an exception for me. I find Maciamo's theories really interesting and don't want to deny the possibility of accelerated cultural evolution due to Neanderthal-admixture. But IMO it is still VERY hypothetical, but it's presentation seems a bit too certain.

Yet I get angry each time I read the name Dienekes, as he made me look like a jerk infront of the whole Eupedia-Forumhttp://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthr...ric-Calculator)

[Yarikoff]

No Maciamo, I mean exactly from 5 to 27 alleles in Europeans according to Interpretome, wich considers a maximum number of 84. There's no evidence at the moment for hundreds of millions of alleles. Actually most Neandethal genes I tend to think that have been replaced, although more research would show more discoveries, but I don't expect any surprise in the direction you point.

Sorry, I was wrong. I didn't mean one hundred millions alleles, of course. I meant that we share something like 2990 million alleles with Neanderthals. Only a few millions differ. But the same is true of out similarity with chimpanzees... (only a few tens of millions alleles more different than Neanderthal).

One recommendation: don't use the Interpretome gadget as your reference.

[lorryuncori]

I just don't understand one thing and it doesn't make any sense. Let say that maciamo is right and that R1b in Europe is INDO-European. How is it possible then that R1b migrated from Anatolia into Europe after J2a without mixing with local Anatolian J2a? The native J2a is even more dominant than R1b in Anatolia.

You have problems understanding this because you assume that Neolithic Anatolia was the same as it is today. Nowadays every region, city or even village in Anatolia is a mixture of all kinds of haplogroups, but things were very different 8000 years ago. Actually there is a good chance that Paleolithic and Mesolithic tribes of hunter-gatherers, small groups of a dozens or at most a few hundred people, all belonged to the same Y-DNA haplogroup, or perhaps two haplogroups (but many mtDNA haplogroups because women were exchanged between tribes or taken by the winner after a clash/war). Neolithic communities that evolved from these tribes also probably all belonged to the same haplogroup. I have always thought that, and this is exactly what we witnessed at the Treilles site in France. That's why I think that Anatolia was divided in territories, some belonging to R1b tribes, others to J2 tribes, and others to G2a tribes.

The best analogy are Amerindians tribes from North America until the European conquest. Some were nomadic, others semi-nomadic, and others settled. Most were hunter-gatherers, but a few were farmers. I believe that the situation in the Middle East at the three first millennia of agriculture (from 9,500 to 6,500 BCE) was very similar to that of Central and North America in the 16th century. Agriculture actually started in the Levant and south-central Anatolia, but didn't reach northern Anatolia until 6500 to 6000 BCE. This timing is perfect because it roughly matches the age of R1b1b2a (L23), which is the subclade that divides the Anatolia (later Greek) branch from the Indo-European steppe branch.

[Saqwnht]

I supose the alleles listed by Interpretome are very clear to be from Neandethals, but the rest of alleles that we share...¿how to know if they were exclusive of Neandertthals or not?

[Wetekemieluth]

Agriculture actually started in the Levant and south-central Anatolia, but didn't reach northern Anatolia until 6500 to 6000 BCE. This timing is perfect because it roughly matches the age of R1b1b2a (L23), which is the subclade that divides the Anatolia (later Greek) branch from the Indo-European steppe branch.

Ok, but the Neolithic started somewhere in the Zagros Moutains. Farming was there much earlier than you think.

"Agriculture: Moving back towards self-sufficiency.

Kurdistan is believed to be where humans first domesticated animals and planted crops. In a scientific publication by Rice University School of Science and Technology, it was reported, "Recent archaeological finds place the beginning of agriculture before 7000 B.C. and animal domestication (mostly dogs used as hunting aids) thousands of years before that. There is some evidence that the people of Shanidar, in Kurdistan, were domesticating sheep and planting wheat as long ago as 9800 B.C."

http://www.kurdishherald.com/issue/005/article05.php
http://stillwatersministry.com/gobeklitepe.htm

Recently they even found 200,000 !!! (yes, you read it good) year old lanterns. It is only part of the discoveries of more than 100 historic pieces. Some of it are 10,000 years old, from the Neolithic era, like:

Some of the items were used for milling grain + including hammers that go back to the Neolithic era.

All these artifacts were found around Duhok, in Southern Kurdistan.

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles.../state4977.htm

http://unitedkurdistan.net/ourblog/?p=1559

[Cheeniandab]

There is some evidence that the people of Shanidar, in Kurdistan, were domesticating sheep and planting wheat as long ago as 9800 B.C.[/I]"

That would be the oldest evidence of domesticated crops in the world. It's possible, but it's not what is usually accepted by the scientific community.

[cauddyVab]

Ok, but the Neolithic started somewhere in the Zagros Moutains. Farming was there much earlier than you think.

"Agriculture: Moving back towards self-sufficiency.

Kurdistan is believed to be where humans first domesticated animals and planted crops. In a scientific publication by Rice University School of Science and Technology, it was reported, "Recent archaeological finds place the beginning of agriculture before 7000 B.C. and animal domestication (mostly dogs used as hunting aids) thousands of years before that. There is some evidence that the people of Shanidar, in Kurdistan, were domesticating sheep and planting wheat as long ago as 9800 B.C."

http://www.kurdishherald.com/issue/005/article05.php
http://stillwatersministry.com/gobeklitepe.htm

Recently they even found 200,000 !!! (yes, you read it good) year old lanterns. It is only part of the discoveries of more than 100 historic pieces. Some of it are 10,000 years old, from the Neolithic era, like:

Some of the items were used for milling grain + including hammers that go back to the Neolithic era.

All these artifacts were found around Duhok, in Southern Kurdistan.

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles.../state4977.htm

http://unitedkurdistan.net/ourblog/?p=1559

It is widely accepted among the archaeological community that agriculture started c. 10,000-8,000 BC in the Levant and spread from there. It is something very well documented in the archaeological record, and so far I have not seen anything to convince me to the contrary; sites such as Jericho and Tell Aswad seem to support this. Also, Göbekli Tepe is usually assumed to have been built by hunter-gatherers

[Tinasblue]

It is widely accepted among the archaeological community that agriculture started c. 10,000-8,000 BC in the Levant and spread from there. It is something very well documented in the archaeological record, and so far I have not seen anything to convince me to the contrary; sites such as Jericho and Tell Aswad seem to support this. Also, Göbekli Tepe is usually assumed to have been built by hunter-gatherers

Ok, maybe you're right. I don't know much about this case.