Two 5000 BC Mesolithic individuals from the La Braña-Arintero site in León (Northwestern Spain), may have bolstered undue confidence in a forlorn Mesolithic continuum of native hunter-gatherers from Iberia to Finland. Despite genomic data revealing they were apparently most similar to current Northern European types, in depth assessments of migrational possibilities were conspiciously missing:
Sánchez-Quinto et al. went into some effort to declare this particular early ‘northern’ genotype virtually “without issue” in Southern Europe:
The mitochondria of both individuals are assigned to U5b2c1, a haplotype common among the small number of other previously studied Mesolithic individuals from Northern and Central Europe. This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations.
The generated data covered 41,320,020 nucleotide positions for La Braña 1 and 16,876,146 for La Braña 2; thus, about 1.34% and 0.53% of the La Braña 1 and 2 genomes were retrieved, respectively […]
A worldwide genomic principal component analysis (PCA) with data from the 1000 Genomes Project places La Braña 1 and 2 near, but not within the variation of current European populations (Figure S2). However, when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2012)
In the genomic analysis, it is interesting to see that the La Braña individuals do not cluster with modern populations from Southern Europe, including those from the Iberian Peninsula.
The position of La Braña individuals in the 1000 Genomes Project data and the 1KGP omni [2.5M] chip PCAs suggests that the uniform Mesolithic substrate could be related to modern Northern European populations but may represent a gene pool that is no longer present in contemporary Southern European populations (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2012)
Others are keen to warn against premature generalizations. Martin Richards: ‘Unfortunately, some ancient DNA researchers seem unable to resist making sweeping claims about the ancient genetic structure of whole regions’ (Balter, 2012). “Only half” of the few current Mesolithic samples are in the mtDNA U5b group, indicating Mesolithic peoples were more diverse than many so far chose to perceive. Moreover, south of the Alps there was also an entirely other element that before Ötzi the Iceman we only knew from the isolated Sardinian island. D-statistic analysis indeed confirmed that ‘the Iceman and the HGDP Sardinians are consistent with being a clade’ (Patterson et al., 2012). Ancient DNA data from an early Iron Age individual from Bulgaria showed close affinity with Sardinians as well, indicating the “Sardinian clade” must have closely resembled populations present in the Southern Alpine region around 5000 years ago. Currently there exists some prevalence to cluster this “southern flavor” apart from the mentioned Mesolithic group, while geographically there is some overlap. The jury is out on the question whether or not the Sardinian cluster is autochthonous in Europe. The “pan-Mesolithic” simplification could thus easily be due to erroneous modeling, poor resolution and insufficient sampling of the prehistoric situation.
Another issue may be the current genetic landscape of Europe. Due to Neolithic and post-Neolithic population movements the ‘southern flavor’ was apparently overrun or out bred except for Sardinia, while the ‘northern flavor’ diluted slightly in the north but otherwise expanded considerably. This is evidenced by an almost devastating retreat of the southern “Ötzi-like” genotype ever since the time of Ötzi about 3300 BC, in favor of a more Northern European-like genotype. The retreat of this “Sardinian” genomic element fully postdated the southern Mesolithic expanse evidenced by the La Braña-Arintero individuals, as well as the 4600 BC Mesolithic skeletons found in Aizpea, Navarra (Spain), for that matter, also carrying U5b. The retreat of both types may be interrelated and contemporaneous. Indeed, the early Mesolithic predominance of mtDNA U5b is hardly reflected by the modest contribution of mtDNA U5b in modern European populations. This mtDNA haplotype nevertheless strongly suggests an expansive northern origin as they share U5b with mtDNA samples recovered from present day Lithuania (Donkalnis and Kretuonas sites), Poland (Dudka site), Germany (Hohlenstein-Stadel individuals and Falkensteiner Höhle sites; and arguably (according to Sánchez-Quinto) from the 4000 BC Reuland-Loschbour site in Luxembourg as well as from the “Cheddar Man” skeleton found in Gough’s Cave, England. Also here Sardinia is remarkable for having preserved some unique mtDNA U5b3, whose possible relation with stone tool innovation may only be suspected: ‘The root of U5b3a1 originated probably in the Mediterranean coast of southern France and the same haplotype then went into Sardinia some 7–9 kya, possibly as a result of the obsidian trade that linked the two regions.’ (Pala et al., 2009)
Hence, Patterson’s (2012) high Z-scores with UK, Ireland and especially Russia, could be expected to link Sardinia to a conservative early Mesolithic influx. Unfortunately, Patterson’s team preferred to extrapolate the Russian evidence from a rather hypothetical Middle East signature, otherwise dearly missing in their dataset. Their hypothesis nevertheless triggered them to (weakly) link the southern component to the arrival of Neolithic farmers “probably from the Middle East”. Also in other ways the intermediate role they assign to some would-be “exclusive” Eastern European association, actually due to a lack of resolution, fails to supply proxy-evidence for the genetic link with the Middle East they apparently expected:
An alternative history that could produce the signal of Asian-related admixture in northern Europeans is admixture from steppe herders speaking Indo-European languages, who after domesticating the horse would have had a military and technological advantage over agriculturalists (Anthony 2007). However, this hypothesis cannot explain the ancient DNA result that northern Europeans today appear admixed between populations related to Neolithic and Mesolithic Europeans (Skoglund et al. 2012), and so even if the steppe hypothesis has some truth, it can explain only part of the data. (Patterson et al., 2012)
Patterson’s team asserts that the Sardinian clade corresponds to the genotype of Europe’s Neolithic settlers, and finds some support in Neolithic farmer’s DNA of about 5000 years ago in what is now Sweden (Skoglund et al. 2012) that ‘shows a signal of genetic relatedness to Sardinians that is not present in the hunter–gatherers who have much more relatedness to present-day northern Europeans’. Hence they hypothesize that:
[…] agriculturalists with genetic ancestry close to modern Sardinians immigrated into all parts of Europe along with the spread of agriculture. In Sardinia, the Basque country, and perhaps other parts of southern Europe they largely replaced the indigenous Mesolithic populations, explaining why we observe no signal of admixture in Sardinians today to the limits of our resolution. (Patterson et al., 2012)
Their observations are indeed due to the limits of doing a 3-population test. Loh et al. (2012): ‘The 3-population test loses sensitivity primarily as a result of drift since splitting from the references’ lineages. […] Small mixture fractions also diminish the size of the admixture term […] and we believe this effect along with post-admixture drift may be the reason Sardinians are detected as admixed only by [linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based] ALDER.’ On the other hand, since ‘LD breaks down [proportional to] the age of admixture, there is nearly no LD left for ALDER to harness beyond the correlation threshold’, that Loh apparently has below ‘7,000-9,000 years ago when agriculture arrived [in] Europe’. Using this method, Loh could relate Sardinians unequivocally to northern Africa instead:
Our findings thus confirm the signal of African ancestry in Sardinians […] The date, small mixture proportion, and geography are consistent with a small influx of migrants from North Africa, who themselves traced only a fraction of their ancestry ultimately to Sub-Saharan Africa (Di Gaetano et al., 2012)
However, Di Gaetano (2102) ran ADMIXTURE software in a different way, using Identity-by-state (IBS) sharing between and within populations for 126K autosomal SNPs. Applying a cross-validation procedure to validate results for each number of clusters, K, from 2 to 10, he ‘obtained at K= 4 the lowest cross-validation error.’ Thus their data set could be restricted to four clusters (K=4) or regional common denominators, painted purple (Northern Africa), blue (Middle East), light green (Northern Europe) and crimson (Italy) in their figure 3. Now the results indicated something completely else:
The HapMap CEU individuals showed an average Northern Europe (NE) ancestry […] of 83%. A similar pattern is observed in French, Northern Italian and Central Italian populations with a NE ancestry of 70%, 56% and 52% respectively (Figure 3). According to the PCA plot, also in the ADMIXTURE analysis there are relatively small differences in ancestry between Northern Italians and Central Italians while Southern Italians showed a lower average admixture NE proportion (43,6%) than Northern and Central Italy, and a higher Middle East ancestry (light blue) of 28%. (Di Gaetano et al., 2012)
Thus could be established by Di Gaetano’s team that the average admixture proportions for Northern European ancestry within the current Sardinian population is 14.3%, with some individuals exhibiting very low Northern European ancestry (less than 5% in 36 individuals on 268 accounting the 13% of the sample) – probably indicating an uneven and complicated population history for this component. This kind of patchy distribution has also been noted for the Sardinian mtDNA U component, that was dearly missing in 16 ancient Nuragic individuals of Central Sardinia (~2,700-3,430 yBP) whose mtDNA were T, H1, K, V, J, X. mtDNA has a total of 9.2% in modern Sardinia, well within common European values (8.1%-10.3%). The highest percentages in modern Sardinia for U5a, U5b, U8 and Uother were measured in the north, reaching a significant 15.1% over 106 samples. (Der Sarkissian, 2011) Could we tentatively assume an ancient substructure of coexisting populations, where a northern Mesolithic element was not necessarily native in Europe’s south? Simultaneously, Di Gaetano’s team confirmed the Sardinian clade was deeply rooted in Sardinia – and probably elsewhere as well:
An intriguing result of the ADMIXTURE analysis was the proportion of ancestry in Sardinia, an ancestry shared with all the European and Northern African populations included in this analysis but with the highest level in Sardinia (Figure 3 crimson colour).
This average admixture proportion is widespread across all over the Sardinia island, with no geographic clustering, underlining an internal genetic homogeneity among the Sardinians. At the same time, this admixture proportion could be the signature of a common ancient genetic background of all the continental European populations but the isolation of the Sardinians has preserved this ancestry. The recent sequencing of the Iceman’s genome, argues strongly in favor of the hypothesis that at least continental Europeans, living 5,300 years ago, were more similar to the current Sardinians.
Di Gaetano’s cross-validation analysis sets his admixture analysis apart from the murky assessments that prevail on the internet, where interest groups tend to invent their own clusters of choice, suppressing others they dislike, and typically display results meant to boost fancy Kurganist or Orientalist scenarios. Instead, we have now at our disposal an ancestral genetic configuration that is truly relevant to the Mediterranean ethnogenesis, having a northern component predominantly shared with northwestern Europe rather than northern Europe as a whole – due to the close correlation with a “CEU” reference population of Utah residents with ancestry from Northern and Western Europe. For sure this particular northern correlation is bound to be completely different from one including random northern reference samples that for instance may predict a rather Finnish affinity, knowing Finland is an outlier within the northern hemisphere all by itself whose specific historic or prehistoric influence in the Mediterranean should be dealt with separately. For instance, the significant Mesolithic burial site ‘Yuzhnyi Olenii Ostrov’ in Karelia, NW Russia, dated at 7500-7000 YBP, surprisingly yielded mongoloid influences and Siberian mtDNA C1. The haplogroup has virtually disappeared from the region, though apparently this was part of a huge Siberian genetic interchange between west and east that also involved “European” mtDNA (eg. U5a in the peri-Baikal region, Van Sarkissian 2011). This Mesolithic integration may have been at the base of long-range linguistic integration that ultimately formed Uralic and Altaic languages, but most of all supplied a new genetic component in North Eastern Europe, that already could have had some impact on the genetic composition of Skoglund’s three Mesolithic samples (Ajv52, Ajv70 and Ire8) on the island of Gotland (5300 to 4400 cal yr B.P.). If Finnish-like genetic proximity just off the radar indeed already affected Skoglund’s Scandinavian samples this essentially detaches Mesolithic Scandinavia from the northern European horizon “pur sang” – potentially shatters current ideas on a much later bronze- or iron age Uralic arrival in the region.
Such old substructure for northern European populations has rarely been dealt with and runs counter to the traditional assumption of an extended period of steady gene flow between southern and northern populations, followed only by a fairly recent immigration of “the Finnish” component. In 2009 Nelis’ team already noted his scatter plot took ‘the form of a triangle, with the Finnish, Baltic and Italian samples as its vertexes’, what indeed implies a much more complicated substructure for northern populations whose generalization is bound to introduce irrecoverable errors.
Point of contention about a more general Sardinian-clade ancestry in Europe may be it remains low or hard to conceive north of the Alps, where a different clustering dominates. Naturally, adopting all-inclusive variability in the whole of Mesolithic Europe potentially shatters the concept of any kind of Mesolithic hunter-gatherer continuum and would instead define the Mesolithic La Braña-Arintero specimen to represent an early Northern intrusion.
Scrutiny of the Sardinian Northern admixture doesn’t really confirm Sánchez-Quinto’s team assertion the old Mesolithic substratum is by now seriously diminished in southern Europe, unless it retreated together with the Sardinian clade. But, apparently the current European genotype is again strongly admixed by a Northern European component, doesn’t this imply at least two different expansion periods for genes of the Northern European type in Southern Europe?
Altogether, the current scope of investigation supplies ample evidence of northern expansion within the European gene pool, and a rather poor case for an oriental Neolithic intrusion if compared with the current oriental composition.
Rather than recurring to the hypothesis that the current Near Eastern genotype “thus” must have changed beyond recognition in order to fit the evidence of a very different “Ötzi-like” genotype, I consider it more parsimonious to seek the origin of this Southern European genotype in the southern local Mesolithic.
The purported “oriental” affinity for European autosomes of this southern component is far from obvious. Modern populations in the near east have a quite different signature, what makes an oriental origin of an Ötzi-like component in European populations highly hypothetical and problematic. So far there is not any indication modern populations east of the Mediterranean somehow “lost” their tentatively hypothesized Ötzi-like component due to post-Neolithic immigration, so all attempts to attribute an “Oriental” Neolithic identity to Europe’s Ötzi-like southern component appear futile and rather of the category “ideological reactionism” as far it concerns the fashionable adherence to a flourishing multitude of post-war or semi-biblical hypotheses on Indo-European and Neolithic origins. Actually, improved technology and methods show ever less non-European identity or admixture in the Sardinian clade, except for small non-European affinities being “north African” rather than Asian. Simultaneously, the “northern” affiliation of most European populations appear firmly rooted in the Northern Mesolithic, and includes a significant ancient affinity with Amerindian populations apparently poor or absent in the representatives of the Sardinian clade like Ötzi and the Neolithic farmer of Gokham (Gok4). According to Dienekes the Iberian hunter-gatherer of La Braña 1 is of the ‘non-Amerindian’ affiliation and African-admixed, what indeed could confirm a longer local history of this Mesolithic presence in the south. One way or the other, current admixture analyses thus reveal the European north-south diversity deeply rooted in prehistory. As such, Patterson’s global ethnical division of prehistoric Europe on cultural grounds in separate Mesolithic and a Neolithic entities is build on thin air.
The European North-South differentiation is real enough. Jay et al. (2012) found that the major orientations of genetic differentiation are north-south in Europe, where ‘the precise NNW-SSE axis of main European differentiation can not be explained by a simple Neolithic demic diffusion model without admixture with the local populations because in that case the orientation of greatest differentiation should be perpendicular to the direction of expansion.’
Investigating to what extent the results are changed when perturbing the geographical sampling locations of the sampled populations:
If Cyprus and Turkey, the two most Southeastern populations, were removed, the axis of maximum differentiation shifted from a NNW-SSE orientation towards a N-S orientation […] If all other Southeastern populations […] were removed, the orientation of maximum differentiation hardly changed, going from 167 to 161 [degrees]. However, if Cyprus, Turkey and all other Southeastern populations were excluded the anisotropic terms ceased to be significant (Jay et al., 2012)
Apparently, the Balkan populations add some more weight to Europe’s N-S differentiation, but don’t really change the genetic landscape south of the Alps. Actually, the SE European impact on the N-S differentiation can be interpreted as a discontinuity arising from a barrier to dispersal, ie. not exactly what one has in mind with an extensive Oriental Neolithic invasion. Hence, most important in Europe remains the N-S differentiation. What could have caused this?
Diamond (1997) proposed that because populations at the same latitude experience the same climate, technological diffusion was more easy and rapid in the E-W direction than in the N-S direction. If the spread of technology accompanied the spread of people as assumed by the demic diffusion models (Diamond and Bellwood 2003), the level of genetic differentiation should then be the greatest along the N-S orientation. (Jay et al., 2012)
In a previous article I already dismissed as probably invalid the underpinning believe in a tremendous genetic impact of agricultural immigrants. The active role of prepottery neolithic groups in SE Europe in the development and expansion of local forms of Neolithic culture may have supplied another reason for this observation. Actually, in several genetic diagrams it isn’t so very hard to perceive a native Southern European genotype that is definitely distinct and defies all similarity to current Near Eastern genotypes. The Ötzi-like southern element neither descents unequivocally of “Neolithic invaders” nor is it culturally confined in any other generic way. Actually, it isn’t necessary to equate the early Neolithic inhabitants of the Mediterranean with oriental immigrants at all now we know these islands were already inhabited long before Neolithic culture arrived:
Discoveries on Cyprus, Crete, and some Ionian islands suggest seafaring abilities by pre-Neolithic peoples, perhaps extending back to Neanderthals or even earlier hominins. (Simmons, 2012b)
Being utterly unrelated with oriental genotypes and affiliated instead to current Sardinian genotypes, an oriental Neolithic identity of the Sardinian clade isn’t even imperative:
Pre-Neolithic sites on some western Mediterranean islands, such as Sardinia, are controversial […], although they appear well established for Corsica (Simmons, 2012a)
If derived of Neolithic immigrants anyway, these immigrants must have been close European neighbours whose hypothetic oriental origin had already diluted beyond recognition by local admixture. There even exists growing uncertainty about a prefabricated oriental origin of the European Neolithic at all, now even the earliest Neolithic Pre-Pottery stage (PPNA) has been confirmed in Greece and the Mediterranean island of Cyprus (~11,700 – 10,500 BP).
It is likely that full-scale colonization of Cyprus occurred during the Cypro-PPNB, that itself is sometimes difficult to distinguish from PPNA, for convenience considered the very earliest Neolithic stage that includes villages but does not yet contain morphologically domesticated plants and animals – ie. actually a period of hunter-gatherers that barely entered a Mesolithic stage.
Recent research has documented […] an interior PPNA site (Ayia Vavarva Asprokremnos) dating to ca. 9000 CAL B.C. […] and entities near the coast, including PPNA or early PPNB Ayios Tihonas Throumbovonos […] and PPNA Ayios Tihonas Klimonas […]. This has prompted some […] to coin the term “Early Aceramic Neolithic” to include both the PPNA and Cypro-PPNB. (Simmons, 2012a)
Already the earliest prepottery period in Cypus attested the management of wild boar, an intermediate stage between “hunting” and “breeding.” Actually, there is no record of suids on any of the isolated Mediterranean islands before Neolithic introduction, including Cyprus. The small size of Cyprus’ PPNA suids, dated to ca. 12,500 cal. B.P. at the Cypriot site of Akrotiri Aetokremnos, doesn’t correspond to any known wild population living on the continent, and even predates domestic downsizing elsewhere. They are ‘the same size as the Early and Middle Neolithic domestic pigs of Corsica, which are among the smallest known Holocene suids from a Mediterranean island’, adding up to the possibility this earliest attested domestication-like downsizing of suids in Cyprus may actually be part of a common phenomonon often observed on islands. Pig domestication was first evidenced in the upper Euphrates basin, at Nevali Cori, where ‘a rapid decrease in animal size ca. 10,500 calibrated radiocarbon date (cal.) B.P. suggests an abrupt event and a constant and intensive breeding pressure’. This is almost contemporary to ‘small-sized suid bones on the Aegean islands of Youra and Kythnos during the 10th and 11th millennia cal. B.P’, suggesting that ‘managed wild boar predated domestic pigs in this area by at least 1 millennium’.
Human introduction of suids to Cyprus during the 12th millennium cal. B.P. implies that wild boar were already managed on the continent at that time (i.e., 1,500 years before the earliest attested domestication), but also attest the importance of seafaring for cultural expansion during the earliest stages of the Neolithic:
First, it is possible that genetically differentiated wild boar populations in eastern and western Anatolia were domesticated independently. Perhaps more likely, however, is a scenario in which eastern Anatolian wild boar were initially domesticated and subsequently transported west out of the Neolithic ‘core zone’ […] The route along which domestic pigs traveled to arrive in western Anatolia remains unknown. The presence of domestic pig remains by the 7th millennium BC (Pottery Neolithic layers) at the site of Yumuktepe, in south-central Turkey […], and the general dearth of pigs during the same period in central Anatolia […], however, suggests that one of the possible routes was along the Mediterranean coast. (Ottoni et al., 2012)
Seafaring between Greece and the Greek islands was evidenced by ‘the occurrence of obsidian from the Aegean island of Melos at the mainland Greek coastal site of Franchthi cave, beginning from the 11th millennium before the present (B.P.)’ , what certainly is in agreement with some importance of eg. Cyprus as a Neolithic nexus that links east and west together:
The Neolithic transformation initially occurred in the Near East, but then spread to adjacent areas. This transmission is often thought to have been through Anatolia, but the new research also suggests maritime routes, with the Cypriot evidence indicating a substantial level of mainland interaction. (Simmons, 2012b)
Continuity up to the relatively homogeneous preceramic Khirokitia culture (KC) may be illustrated by the site Ais Giorkis, that ‘has two aceramic phases and is possibly transitional into the KC’ (Simmons, 2012a). By then, the Cyprus Neolithic ‘showed few parallels with the [Levantine] mainland, having only the basic economic suite of key domesticated plants and animals’. This local transition must have marked the end of the hypothesized maritime rute of the Levantine Neolithic into Europe. Mainland Levantine influence dwindled, and KC developed further in virtual isolation – except for the use of non-native flakes of obsidian – only to follow the extinction of earlier introduced cattle at about 6000 BC. This date corresponds with the surge of a ceramic Neolithic in the mediterranean, when pottery became important. Especially the Cardium pottery culture expanded in the mediterranean, to the west as far as Iberia, but this culture had its earliest sites, dating to 6400-6200 BC, in Epirus and Corfu, not in the Levant. Apparently, the Levantine influence on European populations was considerably constrained in time and space, what may explain the lack of a much closer Levantine affiliation with European populations, including the southern “Neolithic” Ötzi-type genotype. If related to Neolithic genotypes at all, Ötzi should cluster with contemporary Greek populations rather than oriental populations. Indeed, this is already strongly suggested by the DNA of a sampled iron-age Bulgarian individual.
A popular method in genetic investigation uses Fst (Fixation Index) diagrams to quantify long-term gene flow between neighboring populations. Thus, by now a multitude of Fst diagrams is available that most of all attest a genetic continuum between neighboring populations all over the world, at different levels of detail. Typically, sets of genes are used that predominate on each side of a geographic continuum, on the assumption that basic genetic history or divergence by isolation over time superseded genetic convergence by gene flow. Fst increases proportionally with distance rather than anything else, suggesting the importance of an underpinning process of genetic divergence rather than deep genetic history. The relationship between FST and geographic distance is most of all consistent with an equilibrium model of drift and dispersal. Equilibrium models of isolation by distance predict an increase in genetic differentiation with geographic distance. On a world-wide scale, the results of Rosenberg et al. (2002) features a global linear increase of Fst with geographic distance from Africa up to South America, almost exclusively due to Holocene or Epi-paleolithic genetic divergence.
In Behar’s (2010) FST diagram (Figure 2) a clear genetic continuum may be discerned in the middle east, but in relation with Europe this same diagram attests a discontinuity or dichotomy between both Eurasian continents. A vestige of some old Mediterranean genetic continuum may be discerned between the Levant via Cyprus into the direction of Sardinia. Another vestige of gene flow may be discerned through Anatolia into the direction of Romania. Strange enough, the genetic leap of Cyprus with Europe is considerable and despite Cyprus’ historic association with especially Greece, the island belongs genetically rather to the Near East. Most unfortunate to the Oriental case for Europe’s Neolithic population origins, the genetic trail of Neolithic genotypes has another dead-end in Anatolia (Turkey) – according to Skoglund (2012) ‘possibly due to gene flow from outside of Europe’. This evidence for an apparently quite effective genetic barrier is the more remarkable now Skoglund’s team (2012) asserts the Neolithic farmer (typed Gök4)sampled in Sweden ‘shared the greatest fraction of alleles with southeastern European populations (Cypriots and Greeks) and showed a pattern of decreasing genetic similarity to populations from the northwest and northeast extremes of Europe’, while Turkish reference samples ‘stand out because of low levels of allele sharing’. This latter behaviour is contradicted by the graph (3B) where Skoglund apparently refers to, raising questions about its accuracy – especially across the Bosporus. Gök4’s association with western Europe is taken for granted.
Few of the purported Neolithic derived “grand division” is left nowadays in Europe. Already in 2009 Nelis et al. decribed a gradient between modern European populations that is rather “south-north” and hardly influenced by an eastern source. Southern Italy, according to Nelis’team at one extreme side of the genetic spectrum, is known for a disproportionate “oriental” element (28% according to Di Gaetano), but it remains hard to accept Southern Italy should be more “oriental” in Nelis’ graph than eg. Bulgaria. This east-west discrepancy thus reveal the oriental admixture in the European gene pool is predominantly a recent phenomenon that could still easily be filtered out. Instead, Nelis’team couldn’t filter out the Finnish element – probably because this element was already introduced in the Mesolithic, as already described above. Thus the filtering applied by Nelis apparently removed recent introgression successfully, making his graph a reliable representation of ancient European substructure.
The origin of modern Europeans is still a mystery. They didn’t derive unequivocally from any generalized concept of the European Mesolithic, nor from the “Ötzi-like” element of central and southern Europe, and even less from oriental types being ambiguously dubbed “Neolithic”. The late- or post-Neolithic “Beaker” migrations may have played an important role in reshuffling groups that already had a strong foothold in Europe, but so far attempts to relate eg. Corded Ware or Bell Beaker and derivative cultures to external groups were unconvincing. At least here we can find part of the solution on why post-Ötzi Europe emerged so extensively Northern-European admixed:
We applied rolloff to Spain using Ireland and Sardinians as the reference populations.
We have detected here a signal of gene flow from populations related to present-day northern Europeans into Spain around 2000 B.C. […] At this time there was a characteristic pottery termed “bellbeakers” believed to correspond to a population spread across Iberia and northern Europe. (Patterson et al., 2012)
In this article I will adhere to the current archeological insight that reconstruct a continued Mesolithic presence in some key regions that coexisted with distinguished Neolithic groups. That is, the native hunter-gatherer groups that evolved into the main cultural bearers of the Middle Neolithic don’t necessarily represent the complete legacy of earlier Mesolithic expansions. Those Mesolithic groups that had already fully adapted to the Neolithic way of life may have become bottlenecked together with the Danubian population they merged with, while the Mesolithic groups of many geographic other locations that didn’t adapt may have disappeared altogether. However, a growing body of evidence indicates the dramatic population crash that terminated the “Danubian” Early Neolithic was survived by some groups of Late Mesolithic origin that continued to thrive and ultimately entered a new (Middle-) Neolithic phase several centuries later, that in turn evolved more gradually into the pan-European Late Neolithic Beaker groups.
The existence of such hiatus is of importance for understanding the regional transition process, and implicitly also for understanding the relationship between local hunter-gatherers and the incoming Neolithic in general. (Vanmontfort, 2007)
Indeed, a deep gap separates two important Neolithic periods in Europe, but the gradual transition to a Neolithic way of life quite different from that of the Danubian settlers can best be appreciated in regions where the retreat of Danubian influence was most obvious. The Danubian collapse was a regional phenomenon from the Paris Basin in the west to Germany and Poland in the east, but can only be related with a continuation of traditional hunter-gatherer communities in a few places. This event delayed the advent of the Neolithic to the northernmost part of the North European Plain, that includes the Low Countries north of the Rhine and Scandinavia, for another millennium. Especially some western regions witnessed a Neolithic retreat, like in Belgium:
It is the westernmost region settled by Linearbandkeramik (LBK) communities and their cousins of the Groupe de Blicquy (BQY) during the late 6th and early 5th millennium calBC. With the sudden disappearance of these communities, however, the Neolithic as a whole seems to have vanished as well. The region was not occupied by Hinkelstein/Grossgartach and Roessen, the post-LBK Danubian cultures that can be found to the east and south, nor by a local Neolithic similar to the Cerny in Northern France. Only during the last centuries of the 5th millennium calBC, at the beginning of the ‘Michelsberg Culture phase’, does the Neolithic take up its thread (Vanmontfort, 2007)
However, such a Middle Neolithic “revival” happened in situ, at least on the continent, without clear migrational evidence other that the preference for new settlement locations that typically don’t relate to those of their Danubian forerunners. Migrational was the Neolithisation of Britain, that never knew a Danubian phase and directly derive from continental representatives of the Middle Neolithic. This involved several distinct strands of the earliest Neolithic activity in Britain and Ireland: one linking north-west France (probably Normandy) with southwest England during the first quarter of the fourth millennium; one Breton strand, which is found along the Atlantic/Irish Sea façade that appeared first between ~ 4200 and 3900 cal BC.; an even earlier, short-lived episode of ‘Neolithisation’ c. 4300 cal BC or earlier may have linked the west of France and south-west Ireland; and especially the Carinated Bowl (CB) tradition, that came to encompass much of Britain and much of Ireland, dated between ~3950/3900 and 3700 cal BC and also rooted in the westernmost extension of the Middle Neolithic on the continent:
Middle Neolithic ceramic traditions—i.e. the Northern Chassey, the Belgian and Northwest Michelsberg, and Michelsberg-affiliated traditions in the Scheldt Basin—offer some parallels with the CB tradition.
[…] neither the Northern Chassey nor the Northwest Michelsberg and its affiliated ‘cultures’, as currently known, offers an exact parallel for the ‘CB Neolithic’.
Despite the current absence of proof, it remains a reasonable possibility that ceramic assemblages that more closely match CB pottery (and the accompanying elements of the CB Neolithic ‘package’) remain to be found in Picardie and/or Nord-Pas de Calais.(Sheridan, 2007)
Thus it can be established that the bearers of Middle Neolithic culture were certainly flexible enough to organize migrations to new territories, but still this pattern is missing in most of Continental Europe: ‘the spatial distribution of Late Mesolithic, Early and Middle Neolithic sites, suggest a local development of the Middle Neolithic on top of a native, Mesolithic-rooted substratum’ (Vanmontfort, 2008b).
However, this model requires a mobile Mesolithic source population that remained able to move freely within territories commonly considered exclusively “Neolithic”!
Current archeological insights indeed tend to attribute much more importance to the role of the transitional “Mesolithic” populations of just before or contemporary with the Neolithic, while expanding early Neolithic settlers often hardly outgrew their Mesolithic identity themselves. Holocene migrational mobility must have been a worldwide phenomenon, as recently confirmed in genetic datasets as far away as Australia. Phenotypic similarities between Australian Aboriginal People and some tribes of India were already noted by T.H. Huxley during the voyage of the Rattlesnake (1846–1850), but were neglected until now we know 11% of the autosomal DNA of northern Australians can be related to prehistoric Indian hunter gatherers (assumed most similar to Chenchu, Kurumba reference populations and to the South Indian nontribal Dravidian speakers) that crossed the Indian ocean, while a tremendous 60% of Australian YDNA (virtually all this being Hg C4) now apparently derive from a related single admixture event of Indian ancestry. This even affected the more archaic Riverine group of SE Australia, that rather cluster with Melanesians (Bouganville) and Papua New Guineans: ‘An Australian and New Guinea link is quite clear through the mitochondrial P haplogroups, their common ancestors apparently entering Sahul from south-east Asia’ (Van Horst-Pelikaan), even though here new YDNA replacements of European origin are speeding up that already tend to obscure the past.
Assuming a generation time of 30 y, our results indicate that the gene flow from India into Australia occurred around 4,230 y ago, consistent with a previous estimate based on a small number of Y-STR (short tandem repeats on the Y-chromosome) loci.
Interestingly, at around this time, several changes take place in the archaeological record of Australia. There is a sudden change in stone tool technologies, with microliths appearing for the first time (Pugach et al., 2013)
At this time the dingo made its first appearance in the Australian fossil record, and people started to process plants differently. Certainly the apparently Veddoid immigrants from India must have brought their time capsule with them, but except for the dogs they came with empty hands and confident to find their needs “on the road”, ie. in Australia. By then the Neolithic level of civilization was not a shared commodity for all of South Asia, and possibly much of India was even far behind in the aspects of horticulture in comparison with much closer neighbours of Australia. The earliest evidence for banana (M. acuminata ssp. banksii, 22 chromosomes) cultivation derives from Kuk Swamp at 7000-6500 years ago in highland New Guinea, but hadn’t reached South Asia nor mainland East Asia yet. There exists ample evidence for maritime interactions from the early Holocene in western New Guinea and eastern Indonesia. The sago palm reached the Philippines and Indonesia from further east. Possibly taro originates from New Guinea, as well as sugar cane and Australimusa bananas (20 chromosomes). Australia, including the anthropological conservative parts further down SE, could very well have been already on the same “Neolithic” level of New Guinea at the time of the Indian immigrants:
[…] more sedentary groups in places with rich food sources such as the central and lower Murray valley […] had many of the characteristics of similar complex foraging societies. […] They also practiced what can properly be described as effective horticulture.
The diet of these people was so similar to that of New Guinea agriculturists that their tooth pathologies are virtually identical
The expansion happened only a few centuries before rice cultivation reached the advanced Indus Valley Civilization:
Depending on how the researchers calibrated their clock, they pinpointed the origin of rice at possibly 8,200 years ago, while japonica and indica split apart from each other about 3,900 years ago. The study’s authors pointed out that these molecular dates were consistent with archaeological studies. Archaeologists have uncovered evidence in the last decade for rice domestication in the Yangtze Valley beginning approximately 8,000 to 9,000 years ago while domestication of rice in the India’s Ganges region was around about 4,000 years ago. (May 3, 2011 in ScienceNewsline.com)
This may collaborate to the explanation why this immigration event didn’t bring Australia immediately to the contemporary level of regional civilization as we perceive this today. Even the dingo may have been more island East Asian than Indian. Instead, prehistoric Indian immigration may have been much more important for bringing new tool technologies and – the introduction of highly successive new genes.
This must be an eye-opener for those that still disregard the Mesolithic as “competitive” and “modern”. Increased evidence and new insights reveal the technological impulse, that triggered the tremendous population changes conceived to have repatterned the world, as “Mesolithic” rather than “Neolithic”. The Mesolithic refining of stone tools supplied a varied tool kit for a competitive, wide spectrum economy, with native stone products sometimes even being in high demand in the Neolithic world; Gobekli Tepe, currently dated to the PPNA/early PPNB and starting in the second half of the tenth and ninth millennia cal BC., was actually a wonder of Mesolithic architecture well before the Neolithic revolution in Anatolia: only the most recent layer consists of sediment deposited as the result of PPNB-level agricultural activity (Dietrich et al. : ‘Since neither domesticated plants nor animals are known from the site, it is clear that the people who erected this monumental sanctuary were still hunter-gatherers, but far more organised than researchers dared to think 20 years ago’); and the development of Neolithic agriculture would not have made any sense without the Holocene appearance of plant-processing technologies. Apparently, at least some great expansion events were rather linked to the technological improvements that immediately preceded or were contemporaneous to the Neolithic, eg. concerning the use of microliths – small stone tool commonly used to form the points of hunting weapons, such as spears and arrows. Still, the general narrative of incoming farmers, bearing an evolved Neolithic package, that replaced previous populations according to a simple model of migration, demographic growth and the dispersals of the world’s main language phyla, being all driven by the invention of agriculture, remains enormously influential, and continues to be vigorously defended. Concerning migrational processes, genetic investigation and population history, however, the Neolithic agricultural revolution increasingly emerges as a non-unique phenomenon that at most marks the temporary success of an expansive period:
One of the prehistoric events that has been considered as a plausible device to fuel both demographic and cultural spread is the shift from a hunter-gatherer to an agricultural mode of subsistence thought to have occurred independently in only a few places in the world […] However, the attempt at explaining the success of the ten most widely spoken language families of the world in terms of the Neolithic demic diffusion model —that is, by linking the spread of languages, genes, and economy—has been challenged in almost every single case (Chaubey et al., 2010)
The expansion of Indian hunter-gatherers to Australia, albeit already on the Mesolithic level of development, magnificently outclassed the migratory achievements of their Neolithic contemporaries. Most likely the migrational irrelevance of Neolithic settlers was a tendency that applied all over the world. In SE Asia, it is doubtful rice cultivation was part of the original ancestral subsistence package in the Austroasiatic expansion:
One claim made by Diffloth (2005) appears to us to be uncontroversial; that Austroasiatic speakers typically spread along river valleys, seeking swampy ground to cultivate taro
Generally the indications are strong that taro was the original crop and that rice was superimposed upon it. The extension of rice agriculture into new niches over time, such as the steep hillsides, would have greatly extended to potential range of those early communities. (Sidwell & Blench, 2009)
As such, it would be premature to classify the original Austroasiatic horticulture as primarily Neolithic, although the quest for humid valley bottoms suitable for taro is considered ‘one of the “engines” of the Austroasiatic expansion’ (Blench 2011). Linguistic evidence is ‘consistent with the idea that methods of farming and preparing harvested rice for consumption were relatively new to proto-Austroasiatic speakers. [Example] words could even have been coined, and diffused through the speaker community, after the linguistic break-up had begun, but while speakers were still in contact (the dialect chain stage)’ (Sidwell & Blench, 2009).
This chain spans a geographic and linguistic continuum without nesting, whose most northerly and southerly extremities ultimately became the Manda and Nicobaric branches respectively. The centre of that chain remained located on the middle Mekong. On their zenith Austroasiatic settlers may have reached pre-Austronesian Indonesia in the east, where the main Austroasiatic YDNA haplogroup O2a-M95 is still dominant on many islands; the Indus Valley to the west, just before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans; and north as far as the borders of Bronze Age China at the Yangzi river. High percentages of O2a for Hmong (Miao) and Mien (Yao) people (up to 45.16% in the Yao lowland), otherwise without doubt ancient inhabitants of the East Asian area and “intermediary” between Southeast Asians to East Asians (Cai, 2011), may be one of the many relicts of forlorn Austrasiatic presence in the north. It has been widely claimed that the name of the Yangtze itself is of Austroasiatic origin. When Austroasiatic hegemony collapsed, much of its territory was overrun by their neighbours far and wide, such as the Austronesians – predominantly YDNA Hg O1a1 (O-P203) O1a2 (O-M110) – and the Tai-Kadai people, (originally) from the northeast, and Tibeto-Burman people from the northwest.
The subsequent Austronesian expansion was culturally Neolithic whose origin is usually pinpointed in Taiwan, but according to Blench much of its tremendous cultural diversity was borrowed from the Austroasiatic speakers that reached western Borneo and Papawan before them: the Austronesian speakers assimilated them and adopted taro cultivation before they continued their expansions.
In recent years there has been a rising chorus of discontent from archaeologists who are increasingly claiming that the data does not fit the simple demographic expansion model. The claim, put simply, is that assemblages seem to be rather diverse and complex and do not correspond to a simple model of incoming Neolithic farmers replacing foragers. Rather, the patterns of material culture in prehistory seem to point to earlier and more complex inter-island interactions than the Austronesian expansion model would seem to imply. (Blench, 2011)
Instead of a simple substitution of Austro-Melanesian foragers by Austronesian newcomers (predominantly falling into YDNA haplogroup O1a, whose currency is rather poor among modern Austronesian speakers), a picture emerges of intense cultural and ethnical integration to the effect that ‘Neolithic incursions make only a minor impact on the paternal gene pool, despite the large cultural impact of the Austronesian expansion’ (Karafet et al., 2010).
Another part of the Austroasiatic speakers migrated west. Especially the Munda group penetrated deep into the racially distinct regions of India. Sidwell & Blench deny great antiquity for the Austroasiatic group, and consider Munda’s profound change the result of rapid restructuring in a bottle-neck event at the arrival of a small population of emigrants, at most 4000 years ago. Michael Witzel, a German-American philologist, asserts that Indo-Aryan of the earliest Rig Vedic period (~ 1700-1500 BC) received influences of a linguistic substratum similar to Munda, as he found – besides an utter lack of Dravidian loans in the early Rig Vedic period – ‘some three hundred words from one or more unknown languages, especially one working with prefixes. […] close to, or even identical with those of Proto-Munda’.
Though ancient Austrasiatic presence in the Indus Valley may be tentatively assumed, especially since the dates are consistent with the pre-Vedic arrival of rice cultivation in the area and the acceptance of an Austroasiatic word for rice in southern India, from where this word conquered the world, we have to be weary. Compared to the paleolithic situation, generally assumed to have been the scene of thousands of small, virtually unrelated languages, the current classification of most languages into just a few phyla is disproportionate. Only Papua New Guinea – having 850 languages, proposed to fit in 23 Papuan language families and leaving 9–13 isolates – echoes the Paleolithic situation. A fair degree of linguistic diversity was preserved in the Americas, and also the 12 extinct languages that group in five possibly unrelated clusters on a tiny island like Tasmania, may help to see the current situation in proportion. Virtually everywhere else the almost contemporaneous expansion of just a few language families in the world, inevitably at the expense of thousands of other languages between Cape town and Dublin and Tokyo, can only be taken diagnostic of sudden, unprecedented cultural change. There is no alternative than to assume at most a Holocene origin for all main current language families, what also implies we should be ready to accept the extinction of linguistic groups that only survived long enough to have left traces in the languages we know, being otherwise completely unrelated with any extant group. Still attempts abound to link barely known and unidentified languages of some old civilizations to extant language groups: Sumerian to Finnish, Elamite to Dravidian, Cretan to Semitic, Etruscan to an Altai-Ugrian mix – and now Harappan to Austrasiatic? The latter may at most apply to just the ultimate phase of the Indus Valley civilization. What matters here are Munda groups that survived in central India, as a relict of Neolithic immigration from the east whose SE Asian origins are genetically confirmed:
The presence of a significant (approximately one-quarter) southeast Asian genetic component among Indian Munda speakers is […] implying their recent dispersal from southeast Asia followed by extensive admixture with local Indian populations. The strongest signal of southeast Asian genetic ancestry among Indian Austroasiatic speakers is maintained in their Y chromosomes, with approximately two-thirds falling into haplogroup O2a. Geographic patterns of genetic diversity of this haplogroup are consistent with its origin in southeast Asia approximately 20 KYA, followed by more recent dispersal(s) to India. (Chaubey et al., 2010)
This age estimate of Hg O2a is the hypothetic upper boundary for any Austrasiatic dispersal event into India that involve the O2a lineage, with the assumption that this YDNA haplogroup already originated somewhere near the Austroasiatic homelands. ADMIXTURE analyses of Chaubey et al. at K=7 reveals the dominance of a Dai-like “Southern East Asian” genetic component for Austrasiatic speakers in general. Austroasiatics have also picked up some South Asian (or “Dravidian”) influence – what may tell us something about either admixture of nearby pre-Indo Aryan populations, or reveal a possible pre-mongolid native population closely related to neigbouring South Asian populations in the west. Remarkable is the omnipresence of this “Southern East Asian” element, as it is represented all over East Asia, with percentages getting smaller towards the north. A SE Asian expansion so far to the mongolid north is hard to accept, so I figure this feature must be due to incomplete lineage sorting, reminiscent of an eventually northern mongolid origin of most of the SE Asian genetic component. Another “mongolic” component that reached south appears more pronounced in Sino-Tibetan populations, what should be the result of a much more recent genetic association linking SE Asia to the north. This second element may be correctly represented – ie. conform the k=7 reference groups – in its purest form by north-east Asian Hezhen and Xibos people. The Xibos may be described as a Tungusic-speaking offshoot of the ancient Shiwei people, that inhabited far-eastern Mongolia, northern Inner Mongolia and northern Manchuria. The origin of the Hezhens or Nanai, sometimes also referred to as “fish-skin people”, is Manchuria. Especially the latter region is characterized by extreme seasonal contrasts, ranging from humid, almost tropical heat in the summer to windy, dry, Arctic cold in the winter. The Nanai economy was based on fishing, and agriculture entered their lands only slowly. Naturally, none of those purported mongolid migrations from the north are related to the Neolithic way of life in any way.
Some genetic peculiarities, and the absence of clear linguistic ties, may confirm this latter “Manchurian” expansion south into SE Asia to have predated the ‘Neolithic’ Austroasiatic and Austronesian expansions. For instance the EDAR 1540C allele is a major genetic determinant of hair thickness, which shows high frequencies in populations of East Asian and Native American origin but is essentially absent from European and African populations. The EDAR component reaches saturation in north-east Asia, and supply a clear distinction of Austroasiatic and Austronesian ethnicities with both South Asians (Indians), the “negrito” people of Upper Paleolithic descend in island SE Asia, and Sahul (Australia, New Guinea) where the lowest regional percentages so far measured was among the Gidra people. Though positive selection has been cited as a prime explanation for its expansion, this has not been substantiated and actually simple pre-neolithic expansion from the north may have played a more important role:
Since hair can play an important role in the protection of the head against coldness by preventing heat exhalation, the thicker hair of 1540C carriers may have been advantageous in cold climates in the north part of Asia. An alternative possibility is that functional changes on EDAR may affect another trait. For example […] it is possible that the functional change between 1540T and C also have an influence on teeth morphology (Fujimoto et al.)
The EDAR allele extend to Tibeto-Burman ethnicities, and remains significant or reminiscent in Austroasiatic ethnicities as the Khasi and Munda that ventured far more west:
Tibeto-Burman speakers of India have the highest (~61%) 1540C allele frequency in south Asia, consistent with their predominantly East Asian ancestry inferred from autosomal and uniparental loci. Meanwhile, the Khasi population is characterized by a 40% frequency of the allele (table 3). Munda speakers also show detectable presence, with a ~5% average, in contrast to its complete absence among Indo-European and Dravidian speakers […] These results are in line with the models suggesting gene flow from southeast Asia to India, albeit more significant among Khasi- than Munda-speaking populations. (Chaubey et al., 2010)
This somewhat extented excursion to Asia shows some of the current concepts about the “Neolithic advance” are incomplete or just completely wrong. The Austrasiatic expansion wasn’t triggered by some adyacent Neolithic trigger, it didn’t originate in the Near East in any way, and instead was rooted in the local Mesolithic of the Mekong river area. According to current insights, rather than being geographically on the cultural or genetic wave of advance that purportedly started in the Near Eastern cradle of Neolithic culture, the Austrasiatic expansion triggered a Neolithic wave all by itself. Both Neolithic waves apparently met rather peacefully somewhere in between, possibly near or in the Indus Valley, where after both Neolithic impulses petered out. Rather than being the source of flourishing linguistic phyla, the initial participants of both Neolithic waves failed to consolidate their early advantage and dwindled. Their brilliantly acquired agricultural niches were soon to be taken by less advanced groupings, that nevertheless seem to have derived much of their strength and abilities to their Neolithic forerunners. In India all the Neolithic “avant guarde”, whether or not originally from the west or from the east, succumbed to the belligerent Indo-Aryans that themselves most likely didn’t participate in the Neolithic advance. At most the genetic heritage of those early Neolithic participants can still be traced abundantly close to their origin, but it didn’t achieve to dominate the modern world. Those Neolithic phyla that didn’t disappear altogether only survived as small, often disparate groups.
All this indicates something else about the great changes that innovated the world at the dawn of history: these didn’t start exactly from a single Neolithic impulse somewhere in time and space, and didn’t evolve further on a single track of advance. Instead, those changes have all appearance to be rooted in generic Mesolithic – or Epi-Paleolithic – culture far and wide, whose mobility was vastly superior to what we know of their Neolithic counterparts. The Veddoid migration to Australia is only one example where Neolithic societies failed and Mesolithic societies expanded instead almost beyond imagination. Indeed, this common Mesolithic heritage may link disparate and almost contemporary Neolithic developments together, and possibly supply a much better reference for the cultural trigger that set the Neolithic developments in motion.
Above I hinted at an ultimate origin of the SE Asian impetus in Manchuria.
Recently sequenced sequenced nuclear and mitochondrial DNA that had been extracted from the leg of an ~40,000 years old “relative” from Tianyuan Cave near Beijing, China (ie. Tianyuan-1), seems to confirm the important role of already differentiated early modern humans of NE Asia since their genes revealed they shared a common origin with the ancestors of many present-day Asians and Native Americans. Firmly classified within haplogroup B, one of the main defining mitochondrial DNA mutations is T16189C. This is an otherwise recurrent polymorphism of the mtDNA phylogenetic tree and possibly subject to negative selection, since it was found associated with higher incidence of coronary artery disease type 2 diabetes mellitus. Strikingly, this polymorphism and adyacent basepairs (atcaacccccccCccccatg) fully correspond with – guess what! – the Neanderthal outgroup: another argument to revise the whole classification system for mtDNA and its undue dependence on apert misconceptions that depart from allele-dependent mutation rates. More than ever, ‘the presence of several archaic features, lost or rare in the [Middle Pleistocene Modern Human] sample, implies that a simple spread of modern human morphology eastward from Africa is unlikely’ (Shang et al,. 2007). The “modernity” of Tianyuan-1 may be thus be less “African” than now – on genetic grounds – may be assumed “by default”. Instead I conceive an important, recurrent expansion node that eventually even contributed to the Mesolithic seeds that were essential to the contemporaneous development of Neolithic culture all over the world. An expansion node “slightly” different, by the way, from the ancestral population discovered by Patterson et al. (2012) that contributed closely related genes find in Amerindians (having the Brazilian Karitiana as a reference population) and Northern Europeans; and most probably also “slightly closer” to a more recent “mongoloid” influx of the Arctic and the Americas that caused current NE Asiatic populations (having the Beringian Chukcha as a reference population) to diverge sightly:
One possible explanation for these findings is that the ancestral Karitiana were closer genetically to the northern Eurasian population that contributed genes to northern Europeans than are the Chukchi. (Patterson et al., 2012)
In my blog “The European Mesolithisation of a Caucasian Neolithic, or the Origin of the Indo European Language family” I hinted at a central Asiatic (?) “Dene-Caucasian” origin of the Anatolian Neolitic wave of advance that reached as far as the Danubian Neolithic in the west and the Indus Valley in the east, being possibly also at the root of contemporary developments in China and the Americas. There may be a third line of cultural events that originated in the northern arctic, whose ring-built pottery techniques may have travelled for thousands of years and thousands of kilometers from east to west before they established a Ceramic Mesolithic right in the backyard of the Danubian Neolithic. These people originated in the Maglemose and Tardenoisien that descended of the early Mesolithic Seuveterrien culture, that had already disinguish itself from the Paleolithic Magdalenien by using microliths in their toolbox. By now they were preparing for the Middle Neolithic transition that was due to supersede the Danubian Neolithic. Their Mesolithic expansionism was essential for the profound genetic changes that made modern Europe so different from how it was before.
Until it reached the wetlands of northern Europe, the Neolithic advance in Europe was pretty straightforward once it had entered the Balkan. Before the Danubian acculturation Neolithic expansion was pretty slow and often accompanied by an increased gene flow into bordering Mesolithic populations once the people involved were eager to enter the Neolithic way of life. Also the Danubian Neolithic essentially started as a Mesolithic development of local populations, albeit not entirely autochthonous. Pottery techniques and apparently much of their YDNA male lineages carrying the Hg G2a marker derived from more southern Neolithic entities:
Due to the latest research, the LBK formation in Transdanubia must have involved an essentially Mesolithic subsistence, complemented by certain elements of the Neolithic package brought here by migrant late Starcevo groups. Many small sites were located in marshy areas, unsuitable for food production as a basis of livelihood. The currently available evidence suggests that there was a 4–5 generations long period, when it was not self-evident that the sedentary way of life would be fully accepted and adopted. (Oross & Bánffy, 2009)
In this period the Danubians also switched to timber-framed houses, while up to then the Mesolithic people in the region predominantly used tents – although timber was already for permanent dwellings dated 5,800 BCE at Lunt Meadows, Sefton (Merseyside, England). The formative phase for the Danubian Neolithic spanned a roughly 150–200 year period between 5600/5500 and 5400/5350 calBC. This was probably long enough for profound changes that may have affected language and genetic composition, but most importantly – the transition set the Danubian people apart from their Mesolithic neighbours, whether or not they originally spoke related languages. At the end the LBK phenomenon emerged as a homogenous people, superseding their southern inspirators and able to expand quick as lightning, searching for arable lands that they invariably sought in the fertile loess grounds somewhat inland from the coastal areas of continental Northern Europe. Their main expansion happened during the Earlier LBK (5450–5300/5250 calBC).
The [Earlier] period’s Transdanubian sites are rather uniform, with no trace of the south-north division characterizing the formative phase, when the terminal Starcevo sites in southern Transdanubia were still occupied. It should at this point be recalled that the LBK spread over large areas of Central Europe exactly during this period, and that its settlements in southern and central Germany […] became firmly established at this time. (Oross & Bánffy, 2009)
Despite their still fresh Mesolithic roots, there is ample evidence the LBK people and native populations in the neighbourhood kept apart, probably being two quite different ethnicities. Vanmontfort (2007) proposed a working hypothesis on native populations that – induced by the leapfrogging arrival of early Neolithic settlers from the Danube region – evolved their way of life gradually into a Middle Neolithic that was quite different from the Danubian. In this view, the Danubian settlers were never dominant but rather “tolerated” when they settled in areas only marginally exploited by hunter-gatherers. On the western limits of their expanse, some Earlier LBK settlements got intertwined with an apparently native La Hoguette pottery tradition. This did not happen in the Hainault region, but in the Limburg area the makers of this pottery were apparently integrated in LBK culture, to the result that purportedly derived Limburg pottery became part of the local (phase II) LBK culture – also in Hainaut. Remarkable is its total absence in the Mesolithic sites of the Hesbaye sector and the Dutch Limburg, nor in the Mesolithic Tardenois and Somme sites. Some of the LBK arrowheads show ‘precise analogies with certain late/final Mesolithic arrowheads (asymmetrical trapezes and triangles with flat inverse retouch and the microburin technique)’. In the process of expansion into the Paris Basin, LBK even accepted two chronologically different types of assymmetrical arrowhead lateralisation from their Mesolithic neighbours, that globally follows the other chrono-spatial division of LBK association with La Hoguette (~left-lateralisation) and Limburg pottery styles(~right-lateralisation). In the Mesolithic Somme region (where we have more ‘native’ information) asymmetrical trapezoidal arrowheads appeared at 6500 cal BC, and probably this type was also common more to the east when LBK could accept this feature already in the Moselle and Alsace regions at an early stage. The subsequent change in the Somme region to right lateralization was probably a more general phenomenon of the Mesolithic in the west, that was first accepted by the LBK in Belgium. Like Limburg pottery, the arrowhead techniques became fixed in the LBK before expanding further into the territory of Mesolithic populations in the northern Paris Basin, to the result that divergent patterns began to occur:
it is significant that the Rubané arrowheads of the northern Paris Basin present technical differences from those of the local Mesolithic. They are in fact much more similar to the arrowheads of the Belgian Rubané. Likewise, oblique truncations disappeared and the symmetrical points of the Rubané of Champagne are totally unknown in the local Mesolithic. Thus one has to accept the idea that the Danubian asymmetrical arrowheads were already an integral element of the lithic industry of the western LBK, which developed in the Rhine-Meuse region during a phase earlier than that of the Paris Basin Rubané. (Allard, 2007)
Interesting is the Mesolithic tradition in the use of Wommersom quartzite and Phtanite, that was another element accepted in LBK culture.
An LBK pit at Maastricht-Klinkers contained several pieces of Wommersom quartzite. This raw material was frequently used by late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups (Caspar 1984), but not by the LBK farmers. (Amkreutz et al., 2008)
Only rarely attested in LBK contexts, it ‘remains questionable if they are actually part of the LBK stone tool production’ – suggesting the exploitation and especially, the continuation of Wommersom use after the retreat of LBK in the region is diagnostic for the irrefutable presence of a Mesolithic population within what is commonly assumed LBK territory. Indeed, one hypothesis asserts the near archeological invisibility of native populations ‘due to their undiagnostic toolkit or taphonomical reasons’ (Vanmontfort, 2007). At first contact the newly arriving LBK population, or family groups, appreciated some of the native know-how and methods, and this is where we receive a clear snapshot of the Mesolithic presence through LBK. There is evidence the native hunter-gatherers remained in the area in a mutual conflict-avoiding situation. Ever since, the development paths of both ethnicities diverged again and apparently they even became increasingly indifferent towards each other:
Despite the indications of contemporaneity and interaction, the data confirm the difference between hunter-gatherers and LBK. There is no data supporting the idea of symbiosis.
Eventually, the collapse of the Danubian Neolithic left an archeological wasteland between the Mesolithic Swifterbant culture in the northwestern wetlands, that expanded to the Lower Scheldt and ‘perhaps even more to the south’, and the Neolithic hinterland to where Neolithic culture bided more time – until in a next stage also the Danubian derived BQY/VSG communities suddenly disappear, leaving a chronological hiatus of Neolithic exploitation between 4850-4300 cal.BC.. In the coversand regions and the southern loess ‘a Mesolithic presence is mainly attested by small surface scatters or isolated microliths’. However, despite their continued presence, ‘it remains difficult to link the evolution with the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition.’
During this hiatus there was no notable expansion, probably because the Mesolithic people that co-inhabited the region already dominated long before. From here on the NW European archeological cultures developed polycentrically, most globally represented by the Rhineland Michelsberg Culture and northern French traditions in Chasseén Septentrional, where the Scheldt basin occupied an intermediate position “in between”. The subsequently emerging second Neolithic phase is ‘clearly different from the first “Danubian” one in almost all its archeological aspects […] The lack of large dwelling structures with deeply planted posts signals a more mobile settlement.’
The ensuing population of NW Europe was neither Danubian nor “Mesolithic” anymore in the pre-Neolithic sense. Instead, much of Europe entered a Middle Neolithic were native groups inherited strongly from a subset of an older Mesolithic that was different from earlier Mesolithic expansion groups. Michelsberg and TRB draw from the same Mesolithic source, and the influence of this or similar cultural groups was soon to expand over much of Western, Northern and even Eastern Europe. Maritime expansion to the Mediterranean and mainland expansion further east still had to wait to the Beaker cultures, that emerged not so very much later in a process of consolidation and accelerated development and commerce. Only once those people entered the full light of history we know their identity, and actually there is no doubt even the current populations are still essentially the same as those that once allowed the Danubian Neolithic to enter their lands – only to be dispatched again later. For understandable historic reasons this is still a blind spot for an elder generation that engaged in teaching the catechism of the archeological bible. It grows harder every day to conform a rapidly growing body of evidence to obsolete views, and there is a growing dearth of parsimonious models to explain what we see. The genetic changes that made modern Europeans the way they are now are still there, and all indicates these are due to Mesolithic events in northwestern Europe.
- Balter – Ancient Hunter-Gatherers Kept in Touch, Science 2012, link
- Barker – The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: Why Did Foragers Become Farmers? 2006, link
- Behar et al . – The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people, 2010, link
- Blench – Stratification in the peopling of China: how far does the linguistic evidence match genetics and archaeology? 2004, link
- Blench – Was there an Austroasiatic Presence in Island Southeast Asia prior to the Austronesian Expansion? 2011, link
- Blench – Archaeology and Language II: Correlating archaeological and linguistic hypotheses, 1998, link
- Bowern – The riddle of Tasmanian languages, 2012, link
- Cai et al. – Human Migration through Bottlenecks from Southeast Asia into East Asia during Last Glacial Maximum Revealed by Y Chromosomes, 2011, link
- Chaubey et al. – Population Genetic Structure in Indian Austroasiatic Speakers, 2010, link
- Denham et al. – Pre-Austronesian dispersal of banana cultivars West from New Guinea: linguistic relics from Eastern Indonesia, 2009, link
- Der Sarkissian – Mitochondrial DNA in ancient human populations of Europe, 2011, link
- Di Gaetano et al. – An Overview of the Genetic Structure within the Italian Population from Genome-Wide Data, 2012, link
- Dienekes – Ancient European DNA assessment with ‘globe4’, October 21, 2012, link
- Dietrich et al. – The role of cult and feasting in the emergence of Neolithic communities. New evidence from Göbekli Tepe, south-eastern Turkey, 2012, link
- Donohue et al. – Banana (Musa spp.) Domestication in the Asia-Pacific Region: Linguistic and archaeobotanical perspectives, 2009, link or try here
- Fujimoto et al. – A scan for genetic determinants of human hair morphology: EDAR is associated with Asian hair thickness, 2008, link
- Hudjashov et al. – Revealing the prehistoric settlement of Australia by Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis, 2007, link
- Jay et al. – Anisotropic isolation by distance: the main orientations of human genetic differentiation, 2012, link
- Karafet et al. – Major East-West Division Underlies Y Chromosome Stratification Across Indonesia, 2010, link
- Kennedy – Stone age nomads settled down in Merseyside, flints and timber suggest, in: The Guardian, Monday 19 November 2012, link
- Loh et al. – Inference of Admixture Parameters in Human Populations Using Weighted Linkage Disequilibrium, 2012, link
- Mueller – The Mitochondrial T16189C Polymorphism Is Associated with Coronary Artery Disease in Middle European Populations, 2010, link
- Nelis et al. – Genetic Structure of Europeans: A View from the North–East, 2009, link
- New York University – Rice’s Origins Point to China, Genome Researchers Conclude, Published: May 3, 2011 in ScienceNewsline.com, link
- Oross & Bánffy – Three successive waves of Neolithisation. LBK development in Transdanubia, 2009, link
- Ottoni et al. – Pig domestication and human-mediated dispersal in western Eurasia revealed through ancient DNA and geometric morphometrics, 2012, link
- Pala et al. – Mitochondrial Haplogroup U5b3: A Distant Echo of the Epipaleolithic in Italy and the Legacy of the Early Sardinians, 2009, link
- Patterson et al. – Ancient Admixture in Human History, 2012, link or try here
- Pugach – Genome-wide data substantiate Holocene gene flow from India to Australia, 2013, link
- Qiaomei Fu et al. – DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China, 2013, link
- Redd et al. – Gene Flow from the Indian Subcontinent to Australia: Evidence from the Y Chromosome, 2002, link
- Rosenberg et al. – Genetic Structure of Human Populations, 2002, link
- Shang – An early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, China, 2007, link
- Sharrock – Diversity in the genus Musa, Focus on Australimusa, 2001, link
- Sheridan – From Picardie to Pickering and Pencraig Hill? New information on the ‘Carinated Bowl Neolithic’ in northern Britain, 2007, link
- Sánchez-Quinto et al. – Genomic Affinities of Two 7,000-Year-Old Iberian Hunter-Gatherers, 2012, link
- Sidwell & Blench – The Austroasiatic Urheimat: the Southeastern Riverine Hypothesis, 2009, link
- Simmons – Ais Giorkis: An unusual early Neolithic settlement in Cyprus, 2012a, link
- Simmons – Mediterranean Island Voyages, 2012b, link
- Skoglund et al. – Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe, 2012, link
- Vanmontfort – The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone, 2007, link
- Vanmontfort – Forager–farmer connections in an ‘unoccupied’ land: First contact on the western edge of LBK territory, 2008, link
- Vanmontfort – A southern view on north-south interaction during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Lower Rhine Area – Between Foraging and Farming chapter 8, edited by Fokkens, 2008, link
- Van Holst Pellekaan – Genetic evidence for the colonization of Australia, 2013, link
- Vigne et al. – Pre-Neolithic wild boar management and introduction to Cyprus more than 11,400 years ago, 2009, link
- Witzel, Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages, 2007, link
- Yong – Genomes link aboriginal Australians to Indians, Mingling of genes four millennia ago suggests continent was not isolated after all, Science 14 january 2013, link
The old idea that Europe is a result of Neolithic immigration from the Near East is ever harder to sustain. Certainly, a variety of grains jumped over from Southwest Asia to the virgin Neolithic world outside “as is”, but much of Neolithic culture discovered in Europe can’t be derived as easily and unequivocally from the same eastern source. Not even pottery, that developed pretty late and almost simultaneously on both sides of the Bosporus from what now increasingly emerges as a quite ‘backward’ PPNB-level of Neolithic civilization.
Until recently, the idea of a Neolithic ‘wave of advance’ could still count on the overwhelming support of geneticists, that interpreted the undeniable NW-SE cline in the distribution of several genetic markers as evidence of Neolithic expansion at the cost of Europes native population. Paleogenetic investigation already attested the low impact of Neolithic mtDNA, the Neolithic contribution of Y-DNA on current populations is ever more contested, and the autosomal DNA of Ötzi the Iceman rather suggests important post-Neolithic genetic shifts, that moreover appears to have been predominantly towards the north. The attested lack of an eastern component in Ötzi’s genome could be readily identified in comparison to modern populations, and raises sceptical questions about his purported “eastern” identity. The simple observation that Ötzi’s utter absence of any genetic Asia-shift necessarily implies that Ötzi does not represent the genetic heritage of Asiatic agriculturists is sound enough, notwithstanding the continuous stream of worthless articles that still demand otherwise. The same could be stated about his Y chromosome marked by haplogroup G2a. As I already explained elsewhere on this blog his DNA may have been different from Mesolithic ethnicities of northern origin, but closely related to the native population south of the Alps. Thus also the very proposition that Europe’s main Neolithic proponents, to be found in LBK and Cardium cultures, are genetically “eastern” at all is increasingly at odds with their sharing of their most common Y-DNA with Ötzi’s.
Now the study of Arenas et al. (2012) reveals that true Western Asian range expansions into European could only be considered reminiscent within the current pattern of genetic traces, if their age would be predominantly older than Neolithic. Europe has a clear SE-NW cline of genetic variation and right from the start this was always attributed to Neolithic expansion from the Near East. This interpretation, however, simply can’t stand up to careful scrutiny. Human genes are not like barley, emmer, lents and all other Neolithic crops being attributed an ultimate origin in the Near East, that all can be easily handed over between Neolithic societies and blurred from north to south and back again. Indeed, population geneticists rarely seem to realize that a range expansion is a two-dimensional process, of a population on an expansion wave that are fanning out slowly over a wider area rather than moving on a straight line. A population that expands from location A to equidistant locations B, C and D thus accumulate genetic distances AB, AC and AD that will be exceeded by lateral genetic distances BC, CD and DB. For the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) this should normally cause the first PC axis to be orthogonal to the expansion axis.
In a previous post I discussed the possible impact on genetic variance, that for this reason is most likely to increase within the circular ripples of the expansion wave (and hence the discussed increase of R1b-U106 variance towards the east, while the oldest and most varied haplotypes can be found in the west).
The authors realize that ‘PCA gradients can occur even when there is no expansion’, but only explore the possible impact of genetic differentiation over time and discard the scenario:
[…] Our simulations thus show that […] admixture between Neolithic and Paleolithic humans have drastic effects on PC1 gradients, and suggest that very large levels of Paleolithic ancestry are necessary to produce SE-NW PC1 gradients (Arenas et al., 2012)
Their model of paleolithic ancestry doesn’t take into account recent evidence on the continuity of archaic human genes, that might have strengthened the SE-NW gradient. Neither do the authors consider extremely quick range expansions without any orthogonal axis, that indeed weren’t feasible by Neolithic transport methods, but could have been a factor in Greek and Roman times up to nowadays. Instead, the autors chose to expand on an alternative range expansion from the hypothetized Iberian LGM (Last Glacial Maximum) refugium that was perpendicular to previous and subsequent range expansions from western Asia. Interestingly, the opposite effects on range expansion gradients didn’t simply phase out the Neolithic contribution, it was obliterated:
[…] our simulation results show that a PC1 SE-NW cline is not compatible with a major contribution of Neolithic populations into the gene pool of current Europeans, but with a major LGM refuge area for Paleolithic populations in the Iberian peninsula (Arenas et al., 2012)
Mol Biol Evol (2012) doi: 10.1093/molbev/mss203
Arenas et al. – Influence of admixture and Paleolithic range contractions on current European diversity gradients, 2012, link
Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues (1963) initiated the representation of genetic relationships among human populations with principal component analysis (PCA).Their study revealed the presence of a southeast–northwest (SE-NW) gradient of genetic variation in current European populations, which was interpreted as the result of the demic diffusion of early Neolithic farmers during their expansion from the Near East. However, this interpretation has been questioned, as PCA gradients can occur even when there is no expansion, and because the first PC axis is often orthogonal to the expansion axis. Here, we revisit PCA patterns obtained under realistic scenarios of the settlement of Europe, focusing on the effects of various levels of admixture between Paleolithic and Neolithic populations, and of range contractions during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Using extensive simulations, we find that the first PC (PC1) gradients are orthogonal to the expansion axis, but only when the expansion is recent (Neolithic). More ancient (Paleolithic) expansions alter the orientation of the PC1 gradient due to a spatial homogenization of genetic diversity over time, and to the exact location of LGM refugia from which re-expansions proceeded. Overall we find that PC1 gradients consistently follow a SE-NW orientation if there is a large Paleolithic contribution to the current European gene pool, and if the main refuge area during the last ice age was in the Iberian Peninsula. Our study suggests that a SE-NW PC1 gradient is compatible with little genetic impact of Neolithic populations on the current European gene pool, and that range contractions have affected observed genetic patterns.
This study departs from the necessity of Last Glacial Maximum Refugiums, places where people survived during the last glacial period in the northern hemisphere. Nearly all ice sheets were at their Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) positions from 26.5 ka to 19 to 20 ka (Clark et al., 2009). According to the theory people disappeared – naturally – from the lands covered by glaciers, but also – and this is questionable – from a broad belt of steppe-tundra borderland in northern, central and eastern Europe down south to southwestern France, the Ligurian coast and the Adriatic Sea. A pattern of forest steppes emerged in southern Europe considered (more?) ‘benign’ to human habitation. Favorable places must have been Italy, by then connected through Tuscany by a land bridge with Elba, Corsica and Sardinia respectively, the Iberian peninsula and the southern Balkan, the latter being directly connected to Anatolia and the Middle East. Somehow ‘LGM refugionists’ considered LGM humanity trapped inside the southern forest steppes, effectively isolated by the southern limits of the extended steppe-tundras. Still, at Europe’s temperate latitudes intense sunlight and loess soils permitted a high level of bioproductivity; mosses, lichens, grasses, and low shrubs that fed mammoths, horses, bison, giant deer, aurochs and reindeer. It is hard to conceive why LGM Europeans would have left this northern paradise behind and contracted to southern refugia – and choose Iberia while during LGM the western Mediterranean basin was much stronger affected by climate change than the Balkan peninsula. Still the preferred LGM refugium, at least to scientific proponents and their mathematics, remained Iberia. This peninsula has a considerable overlap with the Franco-Cantabric region, that includes the southern half of France and the coastal area of northern Spain. In the prehistorical record this region was culturally homogeneous and possibly it was the most densely populated region of Europe in the Late Paleolithic. Highlights of artistic expression before and after LGM demostrate cultural continuity remained virtually unaffected even by the supposed upheavels during LGM. Well known highlights are the rock paintings of wild mammals and human hands in the cave of Altamira, Cantabria (~18,500 years ago, Upper Solutrean, and between ~16,500 and ~14,000 years ago, Lower Magdalenean); the famous Magdalenean paintings of Lascaux, Dordogne, estimated at 17,300 years ago; and the Chauvet Cave (Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc) in Ardèche, whose paintings were confirmed to be much older, between 30,000–32,000 years BP (Aurignacian).
The sudden appearence of real art of such high quality, defies all concepts of gradual evolution in artistic style and human mental capacities. However, the ultimate source of this art may be less visible, like the ancient cave paintings in Nerja, Andalusia (Spain), that emerged this year as possibly the oldest yet found. Organic remains at the spot indicated an even more incredible age than Chauvet Cave: being at least 42,000 years old, these must have been almost for sure the work of Neanderthals. Actually, there is not any reason to presume that knowledge of painting wasn’t native to the wider region. At least the use of paint, for whatever purpose, was already widely known among hominins about a quarter of a million years ago, from the Rhine to southern Africa:
Identification of the Maastricht-Belvédère finds as hematite pushes the use of red ochre by (early) Neandertals back in time significantly, to minimally 200–250 kya (i.e., to the same time range as the early ochre use in the African record) (Roebroeks et al., 2012)
Over this timedepth it would be more than amazing, even bizarre, that the most beautiful horses of Chauvet Cave have so much in common with the horses of the “nave” of Lascaux around the great black cow, almost 15,000 years younger! Indeed, on the basis of stylistic comparison, the Chauvet cave rock ornamentations were initially estimated as being Solutrean (22–17 ka BP) and Magdalenian (17–10 ka BP). This apparent attestation of cultural continuity over thousands of years, however, has a slight geographic component that I conceive as contradictory to the LGM concept. An Iberian LGM refugium would require the people of the Chauvet Cave cultural complex in Ardeche to have migrated to and fro Iberia before arriving in Lascaux, Dordogne. Since Altamira is located well inside the boundaries of the Iberian LGM refugium and dated only slightly after LGM, we might presume that according to the Iberian Refugium concept Altamira rock ornaments are transitionary between Chauvet and Lascaux. They are not. The Altamira hands are not sufficiently unique since painted hands are an ornament in rock art all over the world and the Altamira horses are of a different style. Even the Altamira crouching steppe bison does not have anything to do with Chauvet’s ‘The Venus and the Sorcerer’ having an extinct steppe bison crouching over a great black female pubic triangle in a sexual pose. If the crouching element in Altamira, devoid of all sexual implication, would nevertheless represent the survival of a technical style, preserved by travelling artists, it should be explained why this sexual implication was lost in Altamira while unique European mythological interpretations of the Sorcerer may be readily recognized in historic fertility gods like Crete’s Minotaur, the Frankish Quinotaur (Rhine) and the Celtic Cernunnos as depicted on the “Pillar of the Boatmen” (Seine). Another representation of the paleolithic myth may have survived even in the Sumerian god of creation Enki, sometimes depicted as a bull. Apparently, the Altamira representation attests a different tradition, with an equally problematic transition towards the art of Lascaux. Apparently, the argument in favor of a considerable detour of Paleolithic people quite north of the Pyrenees through-Spain-before-arriving-back-north in Lascaux, is not yet supported by compelling evidence and rather remains the product of grand speculation.
The LGM refugium boundaries of southern Europe, even the very concept of any LGM refugium at all from 26.5 ka to 19 to 20 ka, would be severely compromised if some kind of Franco-Cantabrian local continuity indeed persisted between the art of Chauvet and Lascaux. All scenarios investigated by Arenas et al. showed better results for simulations that ran with low Neolithic admixture. A best fit was warranted by a disproportionate role for the genetic component of a westernmost LGM refugium:
When southern Europe is considered as a single large refugium, PC1 maps show E-W gradients (Figures 2B and S3B), but when the LGM refugium is restricted to the Iberian Peninsula, PC1 maps show steeper NW-SE gradients (Figures 2C and S3C). (Arenas et al., 2012)
The scenarios described by Arenas et al. also investigated the option of mere (Upper) Paleolithic range expansions from oriental origin without subsequent LGM contraction, and indeed the results were very similar to the simulations of a refuge area restricted to the Iberian Peninsula with a history of expansion-range contraction-reexpansion for Paleolithic populations. However, a simple paleolithic range expansion may be insufficient for a true approximation of the NW-SE gradient if a longer history of genetic differentiation could compensate for the drift imposed by LGM refuge scenarios. Unwittingly Arenas et al. depart from the complete replacement of previous populations at the start of the Upper Paleolithic by modern man, and unfortunately this grand mistake already rendered the study obsolete before publication:
The onset of the initial settlement of Europe by Paleolithic populations was set to 1,600 generations ago, corresponding to 40,000 years ago (Mellars 2006) assuming a 25y generation time. In this initial range expansion, we assume that Paleolithic populations completely replaced archaic populations without any interbreeding. (Arenas et al., 2012)
Archaic admixture is a hot item nowadays and already shattered the once popular extinction scenarios attributed to the onset of the Upper Paleolithic. An older age of local genes would make the whole LGM refuge issue virtually irrelevant for understanding current genetic configurations, so I would call this a draw. The main difference of models without LGM refuges is they require continuous habitation everywhere south of the LGM glaciers for a much longer time – and actually there isn’t any reason why they didn’t. Humans just had to follow the game, and wasn’t deterred by the cold to follow their routes up to the food and water at the frontiers of iceage glaciers. Upper Paleolithic people were able enough to do so throughout LGM, and their inmediate predecessors had the advantage of a better climate: the last Ice Age in Europe (Weichselian) was nothing compared with the previous one (Saalien), that ended 130,000 years ago. Of course, simulations of Middle Paleolithic range expansions would account for a more pronounced genetic dichotomy on the European NW-SE axis and thus give better results than Upper Paleolithic range expansions, thus eliminating the need for incorporating LGM refugium related population contractions behind the Pyrenees in the model.
Having said the necessary on LGM refugia, I value the Arenas et al. study for debunking stale assumptions on the Asiatic character of Neolithic influence and the wrongfully implied impact on Europe’s NW-SE genetic gradient. However, the absence of strong mtDNA and autosomal DNA signals for Paleolithic SE-NW range expansions doesn’t necessarily imply consistency with a pre-Neolithic scenario – and indeed probably it doesn’t for Y-DNA. The source of inspiration for this study was mtDNA evidence (Pereira et al., 2005), whose European dichotomy and timeline is now mirrored by the geographic clines of autosomal DNA. Now, the Y-chromosome evidence features some intriguing dichotomies all by itself: ‘western’ R1b against ‘eastern’ R1a; R1b that features an internal dichotomy on SNP S127; and, more recently, R1a that apparently features another west-east dichotomy internally on SNP Z645. The latter dichotomy is continued further east by subclades of Z645, ie. European R1a SNP Z283 against Asiatic R1a SNP Z93. Hence it has all appearance the accumulation of various West/Central European Y-DNA haplogrouos are related and, despite a strong West to East gradient, are thus incompatible with results that previously suggested an important role of a Neolithic expansion:
[…] that R1b1b2 was carried as a rapidly expanding lineage from the Near East via Anatolia to the western fringe of Europe during the Neolithic. (Balaresque et al., 2010)
Naturally, this introduces a new inconsistency in the genetic evidence between Y-chromosome dating on one hand, and mtDNA and autosomal dating on the other hand. Klopfstein (2006) discussed Allele Frequency Clines (AFCs) were ‘mutations having arisen during Paleolithic range expansions should show larger absolute frequency differences than those having occurred during a pure Neolithic expansion’. Genetic differentiation perpendicular to the main direction of range expansions was not his concern for the very massive nature of his AFC-driven model, and still his model shared the preference for pre-Neolithic range expansions:
As expected from our previous results, the average final frequency of the mutation is found much higher after the Paleolithic expansion than after the Neolithic expansion (44% and 2% in the colonized area, respectively) – Klopfstein et al., 2006
Nor, indeed, was the Klopfstein study specifically meant to include Y chromosome genetics in his model. Still, only Y-chromosome substructure appears to be compatible with slow SE-NW range expansions (Balasques et al., 2010). The accepted YDNA dates for the European SE-NW gradiënt, however, are generally considered inconsistent with a pre-Neolithic or Paleolithic scenario. Between haplogroup dating of especially Y-chromosomes is based on obsolete assumptions on extremely large proportions of poorly understood ‘junk DNA’. Like already predicted in a previous post (Evolving Chimps are Messing Up Y-DNA Dating), the actual proportion of functional DNA is already accepted to be much higher, implying a more compromised viability at conception time of deleterious mutations, what in turn translates to actually lower mutation rates. It should be noted the Iberian refugium hypothesis isn’t compatible with Iberian Y-DNA, though maybe a pre-Neolithic development of some R1a and R1b in a wider European context is – especially now the accepted mutation rate keeps dropping.
At this moment it has all appearance that Neolithic DNA south of the Alps was rather much more ‘Sardinian’ and ‘Ötzi-like’ than anything else, ie. virtually devoid of any significant genetic shift to the east. Ethnical continuity of this type may have extended much further east than genetic analyses on current populations would allow us to consider without the evidence currently available in paleogenetic samples – even of an eastern location within Europe as remote as Bulgaria: ‘Strikingly, an analysis including novel ancient DNA data from an early Iron Age individual from Bulgaria also shows the strongest affinity of this individual with modern-day Sardinians’ (Sikora et al., 2012). Time will tell the publication of this find will deal the final blow to current scientific beliefs that concern important Neolithic immigration of Asiatic agriculturists. Much easier would it be to assume the remaining mtDNA and autosomal DNA gradients are simply the exaggerated, sex-biased result of quick range expansions from the east, that blurred all preceding slower range expansions beyond recognition – except for the Y-chromosome gradiënt mentioned above.****) After all, the lengthy debates and elaborate calculations about the origin of a considerable genetic east-shift, and the genetic SE-NW cline in Europe, may simply reduce to the ‘quick range expansion’ that was due to a previously unsuspected popularity in the Classic world of girls from across the Bosporus, as marriage partners.
****) The European clines for YDNA R1b and R1a are nowadays (2014) recognized as fairly recent (late-Neolithic) star-like expansions:
The Larmuseau et al. – Recent Radiation within Y-chromosomal Haplogroup R-M269 Resulted in High Y-STR Haplotype Resemblance (2014) study ‘reveals a strong Y-STR haplotype resemblance among West-European males belonging to haplogroup R-M269, which is most likely the result ofrapid population expansion. This expansion event should have been accompanied by an accumulation of allelic variance, such that the action of mutation and genetic drift had no chance to generate distinctive, subhaplogroup-specific haplotypes.’
Likewise, the Underhill et al. – The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a (2014) study admits that the ‘[w]hole Y-chromosome sequence analysis of eight R1a and five R1b individuals suggests a divergence time of ~25,000 (95% CI: 21,300–29,000) years ago and a coalescence time within R1a-M417 of ~5800 (95% CI: 4800–6800) years’.
In this light, it has become most unlikely any of these West-East clines of the YDNA R have anything to do with the Neolithic advance.
More Mesolithic origin of these clines have already been treated in The Mesolithic Blind Spot.
- Arenas et al. – Influence of admixture and Paleolithic range contractions on current European diversity gradients, 2012, link
- Balaresque et al. – A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages, 2010, link
- Clark et al. – The Last Glacial Maximum, 2009, link
- Kuhlemann et al. – Last glaciation of the Šara Range (Balkan peninsula): Increasing dryness from the LGM to the Holocene, 2009, link
- Morelli et al. – A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture, 2010, link
- Pereira et al. – Highresolution mtDNA evidence for the late-glacial resettlement of Europe from an Iberian refugium, 2005, link
- Roebroeks et al. – Use of red ochre by early Neandertals, 2012, link, On the news
- Sadier et al. – Further constraints on the Chauvet cave artwork elaboration, 2012, link
- Sikora et al. – On the Sardinian ancestry of the Tyrolean Iceman. To be presented at the annual meeting of ASHG, 2012, link
- Züchner – Grotte Chauvet Archaeologically Dated, 2000, link
- The Paris Review Daily. The Spring Issue: Werner Herzog and Jan Simek on Caves
December 30, 2011 | by John Jeremiah Sullivan, link
- El Mundo – ¿La obra de arte más antigua de la Humanidad? 07/02/2012, link
- Mail online, 7th February 2012: ‘The oldest work of art ever’: 42,000-year-old paintings of seals found in Spanish cave, link
Any migratory link of short headedness or ‘brachycephaly’ with the Neolithic advance can be excluded. The lack of any eastern – or northern – shift in the DNA of Ötzi, as observed in my previous post on the subject, should be enough to falsify all assertions accumulated in scientific history about an eastern origin of the ‘modern’ tendency towards shorter brains. This certainly doesn’t support any link either with a theorized ‘extended expansion’ of kurganized populations in the Bronze Age. Ötzi’s DNA was absolutely ‘western’, even more so than current European populations whose genetic gravity seems to have shifted predominantly towards a more northern signature nowadays – especially in Central Europe, where Ötzi is from.
Peculiar, therefore, was Ötzi’s moderately short, ‘mesocephalic’ skull shape, still rare in his time. Intermediate between the traditional ‘long-headed’ shapes, and innovative ‘short-‘, or ’round-headed’ shapes, these skulls start to pop up in the European record – indeed! – about the time of Ötzi. Bernhard (1994) described his skull thus:
[The length-breadth-index] of the mummy’s skull is mesocranic, i.e. of medium length in relation to the breadth of skull. The skull is relatively high (akrocranic) compared to its breadth (Bernhard, 1994)
According to the anthropological criteria of the Frankfurt Agreement (1882), the Cranial Index (CI) of Ötzi (CI = 75.9) was still far from being brachcephalic (short headed, CI over 80) and just slightly too short for being dolichocephalic (long-headed, CI up to 74.9). In the French system his skull classifies as ‘Subdolichocephalic’, indicating his departure from the pre-Neolithic dolichocephalic past indeed meant only slightly shorter, in agreement with the proposition that Ötzi represents the first onset towards the short modern brain.
Indeed, an eastern origin of brachycephaly is problematic in many ways. It can’t be simply deduced from current nor past populations anywhere. Neolithic populations were hardly any less dolichocephalous than Mesolithic aboriginals, even in the supposed Neolithic homelands in the Middle East. The European appearance about 3000 BC of ‘alpine’ round-headedness, often accompanied by a flat ‘dinaric’ occiput, was sudden and contrasted with an older mediterranean-nordic phenotype. So far, no reliable relationship between culture and phenotype could be established, even though in Western Europe this cranial modification was often linked with the introduction of Bell Beaker culture. The Iberian pensinsula, another candidate for the hypothetized homeland of Bell Beaker, was certainly not the origin of dinaric or alpine types: shorter skulls could only be confirmed in a few Portuguese burials, Mallorca and a few dubious cases in the Meseta and the levante (Lichardus), while their presence in Catalonian megaliths rather preceded immigrant maritime and regional Beaker styles.
Another line of thought makes the association with Bronze Age mountaineers that descended to the lowlands to sell their ores, probably based on a purported – though unsupported – theory that brachycephaly was a new adaptation against colder climates in mountainous regions. In Greece such a mountainous origin may indeed fit the evidence: according to Dienekes, Panagiaris’ study (1993) on the Ancient Greek population “from a physical anthropological perspective (413 male and 354 female crania, using 65 biometric characters as well odontological traits)”, concluded that “the greater period of discontinuity in the material is observed during the Helladic period (=Bronze Age in Greek archaeology), where broad-headed incoming groups appear, side by side with the older Mediterranean population” (Dienekes, July 22, 2012). Actually, the period mentioned in the text for this change to be already noticeable was Protohelladic, about 3000 BC, ie. only a few centuries later than Ötzi (3370-3100 cal.BC – Kutschera, 2001):
From the Neolithic to Hellenistic times, in the Helladic space, we find as dominant element the mediterranean genetic substratum
The greatest migration of population which took place in ancient times seems to have happened during the Bronze Age, and it is characterized by a genetic flow from mountainous populations of Pindos towards the southern main part of Greece. The culmination in the intensity of these processes took place during the Early Bronze Age (Protohelladic) and the first half of the Middle Bronze Age (Mesohelladic). (Panagiaris, 1993)
No tendencies to this extend can be detected in the pre-Neolithic human fossil record, not even during the Ice-Age. Almost contemporaneously also non-European phenotypes passed through this quite radical change, towards an world-wide emergence of brachycephaly. Non-dolichocephalic types were quite new, despite Ötzi even to the Alps, while in the Carpatian Basin, even though broad-headedness is nowadays considered native in these regions, their introduction had to wait for the arrival of the Western European Bell-Beaker culture.
Interestingly, amidst a predominantly long-headed population, intrusive brachycephalic elements already reached the northern Italian Remedello and Rinaldone cultures shortly before the advance of Bell Beaker. Ötzi’s mesocephaly could thus as well have been due to hybridization with southern neighbors and indeed, Ötzi’s measurements groups best with these northern Italians (Bernhard 1994). Next in line are representatives of the contemporaneous Horgen culture in eastern Switzerland, that is often linked with the Seine-Oise-Marne (or SOM) culture. Surprisingly, this was one of those regions that allegedly constituted a strong brachycephalous bearing at an early stage. Some Neolithic-period continuity of a brachycephalous element is suggested for the region between Rhine and Seine.
Post-war clashes of grand ideologies that defined the past, during the most insane century of humanity ever, still have their effect on 21st century science. Taboos on phenotype evidence caused much once carefully collected information to be now ignored, avoided or simply lost. However, brachycephalic remains at Furfooz, Belgic Ardennes, originally claimed to be Magdalenian by Dupont (1872), are nowadays rather considered Neolithic (Charles, 1996), thus contradicting previous statements that Furfooz – and brachycephaly – constitued another Upper Paleolithic element in Europe next to the long-headed Cro Magnon and the prognathic Grimaldi types. Coexistence in the European landscape of profoundly different phenotypes over a longer period remains unattested until the Neolithic, and if so the close-range genetic differentiation and isolation implied would have been a remarkable feat in human evolution. More reliable Neolithic results were first found in Grenelle, west of Paris. Munro (1899) mentioned the ‘highly brachycephalic’ type of two skulls found in the cavern of Tertre-Guerin (Seine-et-Marne), and sixteen brachycephalic skulls out of thirty-three from a series of sepulchral caverns at Hastiere in Belgium. The former belonged to an advanced neolithic culture that practised trepanning, and produced polished stone celts, with and without horn-casings. Their culture is arbitrarily dated between 3300-2700 BC, mainly to comply with the more secure dates of the related Horgen culture in Switzerland. Though culturally important, so far this closely related complex located in more mountainous territory couldn’t be credited with the origin of brachycephaly either.
Any association with an immigrant racial component, new in (West and Central) Europe and potentially accompanied by new dominant genetic markers, is highly hypothetical. Bell Beaker culture was often linked with Y-chromosomes marked by haplogroup R1b, that in a recent investigation on ancient DNA could already be confirmed in some very old samples recovered from a site in Kromsdorf, northeast of Weimar in Thuringia (Lee et al., 2012). The ultimate origin of this marker is hypothetized to have been somewhere else, though at least the current European distribution is most likely the result of a long term process rather than impelling migrational events that could be readily identified in the archeological record. Grand conclusions on a distant origin can’t be established for a very common European marker whose distribution rather reveals the remnants of an older European dichotomy in R1b (Morelli et al., 2010). Even the physical type of Bell Beaker folks results unlikely to indicate anything more than rather weak exogenetic admixtures.
Actually, the origin of brachycephaly is elusive and all points to a quite modern, homoplastic innovation. This skull type represents the clearest departure from Cro Magnon’s occipital bun, allegedly inherited from Neanderthal. Indeed, Lohring Brace claims that the Upper Paleolithic and subsequent Mesolithic of northwest Europe simply developed there in situ out of Neanderthal precursors. However, subsequent changes of the skull were dramatic. The origin of those changes are impossible to localize, but apparently accelerated in regions where increased levels of gene flow could be expected. Some places were hit harder by the change than others:
The craniofacial form of Cro-Magnon allies with the living populations of northwestern Europe, specifically with the fringes in Scandinavia and England, but not with the European continent.
Everything from the details of mastoid process form and nuchal muscle attachments to fully “bun-shaped” occiputs demonstrates a continuity from Neanderthal morphology to what visible in the inhabitants of the fringes of western Europe today in Norway, the Faeroe Islands, and England […] Given those aspects of occipital morphology in living northwest Europeans, one would have to predict fossil ancestors with a similar configuration. Fossil predecessors exist with the right occipital characteristics […], and they are called Neanderthals. (Brace, 1996)
The demise of the bun is remarkable, since the occipito-temporal region counts as ‘one of the most derived anatomical areas in the evolution of the Neanderthal lineage’ (Rosas et al., 2008). Migrationists typically pulled their own migrational rabbit out of the hat for their explanations, but all they could offer was some faint notion of an Asiatic source – for having a strong presence of brachycephaly nowadays. Noteworthy is that early Asiatic specimens typically miss any tendency towards brachycephaly, and featured dolichocephalic as anywhere else. Back in time the development of Asiatic skulls parallels Europe even in the occipital bun, a feature of the lost Peking man fossils, still reminiscent in the ~20-30 kya Liujiang hominin (Ash & Robinson, 2011) – despite Liujiang’s already much more rounded occiput having an angularity of 122º, ie. well within the diagnostic range of modern humans (above 114º). If such reduced angularity of the occiput preluded the emergence of shorter skulls at all it should be noted this tendency was observed already in some early sapiens near Israel’s Qafzeh cave, dated to 96-115,000 B.P. Interpreted as ‘modern’ rather than ‘racial’, the remarkable variation of the feature was attributed to sexual dimorphism in the occiput rather than the involvement of a round headed hominin in what could have been a racial hybridization event: a flexed occipital that carries a torus-like bulge centrally (Skhul IX) was interpreted as ‘male’ while an evenly rounded occiput with no development of a transverse torus (eg. Qafzeh 9) was interpreted as ‘female’. This kind of sexual dimorphism is unknown among modern humans and neither does this derive from preceding hominins, as illustrated by the pre-Sapiens paleodemes found in Spain at the Sima de los Huesos, Sierra de Atapuerca. Though considered part of the paleospecies ‘Homo Heidelbergensis’ that forked into the Neanderthal and African Sapiens lineages (‘A conservative minimum estimate for the age of the fossils is now said to be 530 Ka’ – Rightmare 2008), their sexual dimorphism is rather diagnosed by size differences comparable to recent populations. The ‘purity’ of early sapiens in the Near East was never sufficiently questioned, while actually they roamed the frontier between Neanderthal and African hominins, each having cranial characteristics of their own. Still, none of these early differences may seriously be associated with modern brachycephaly, or reveal its origin. Angled occipitals and dolichocephaly were still common among the victims of the Tell Brak killing field, early Neolithic Syria. Senyurek (1951d, pp. 614-15) concluded that “the majority of the Chalcolithic and Copper Age inhabitants of Anatolia were dolichocephals of mainly Eurafrican and Mediterranean types, and that the brachycephals, probably representing the invaders, were rare in these periods. This study has further supported the conclusion that the earliest inhabitants of Anatolia were longheaded, and that the brachycephals came in subsequently.” The alleged introduction of brachycephaly in Mesopotamia during the subsequent Sumerian period, as represented in art, was never confirmed by actual finds:
[…] in iconography the Sumerians were represented with short heads, while the skulls found at Ur and all other sites were long (Soltysiak, 2004)
This ‘Sumerian problem’ of a Mesopotamian population devoid of attested brachycephaly, while originally being characterised by dolichocephaly, appears to be part of an international ‘Brachycephaly problem’. Hittite planocciputs in Anatolian art dates from much later, is equally unsupported by corresponding skulls and postdates the ‘Bell Beaker problem’ of brachycephaly in the west. Only this year a similar tendency was described for Bronze Age Crete, essentially unrelated to marked historical events:
Therefore these results suggest a gradual rounding of the cranial shape for the Central Cretan population in the course of the Bronze Age, resulting from the increase of the cranial breadth in relation to cranial length. They further provide negative evidence for a disruption of the biological history of the Knossos population following the LMIB destructions due to an increase in the biodistance between the samples dating immediately prior and following the destructions.
The gradual rounding of the cranial shape of the Central Cretan population over the course of the Bronze Age and the very similar shape of the Gypsades, Sellopoulo and Mavrospelio crania can be more clearly appreciated by plotting the Cranial Index (100*maximum cranial breadth/glabello – occipital length) data. The Cranial Index describes the cranial shape and higher cranial indices reflect a more rounded cranium. […]
The gradual increase in Cranial Index over the Bronze Age most probably reflects gene-flow from populations biologically different from the Early Bronze Age Cretan population and from inter-population biological interactions (admixture) in the succeeding periods. (Nafplioti, 2012)
Assumed Neolithic intrusions from outside, of populations very different from the European native populations, have been a pitfall for genetic investigators before. Genetic investigation on Neolithic skeletons failed to support the traditional view of Neolithic migrants leaving a dominant imprint on the current European population. Even though assumed essentially non-European, their Neolithic genetic contribution must have suffocated amidst apparent Mesolithic influences in a process already explained as Mesolithization elsewhere on this blog. Moreover, at least the cultural package of LBK, the main “intrusive” Neolithic complex in northern Europe, seems to have developed in Hungary before it spread on the North European plain. The initial advent of the Neolithic LBK groups was swift and influential, but within four centuries there was a decline. The Rossen, Bischheim and Michelsberg cultures developed from LBK stock and apparently their material culture was much appreciated over a wider area, but this success eventually petered out when territorial expansion turned into stagnation. In general there was a noticeable environmental adaptation that inherited from a more Mesolithic way of life. In turn, the acceptance of Neolithic elements within the communities of their Mesolithic neighbors can’t be attributed to anything else but induced inspiration. Many elements of the TRB, a more natively-inspired Neolithic culture, seem to originate in Mesolithic contexts, even though the proximity of the LBK heritage must have been decisive for their appearance. Notwithstanding adaptive processes and the emergence of a completely new physical type, the demise of the Neolithic component seems closely connected with Mesolithization and hence, the resilience of pre-Neolithic populations that in traditional archeology was lost out of sight.
Speculation on an eastern origin of the planocciput remains without evidence, though the despair for finding a geographic origin in the east still rings through contemporary publications:
A. Wierciñski, contrary to the earlier authors, found a far more complicated anthropological structure in the Mesopotamian population, which made the previous search for [a brachycephalic] “Sumerian race” pointless. In his opinion the area of Tibet (or generally Central Asia) may be considered as the Sumerians’ place of origin. (Soltysiak, 2004)
Planoccipital (‘flat’) skulls definitely postdate ancestral AMH areas and remain absent in pre-Neolithic contexts as far as Eastern Asia. Everywhere the deviation from dolichocephaly seems to be a fairly recent development.
Indeed, for all we know, brachycephaly only started to increase in the Late Neolithic and apparently still continues to do so. Whatever the origin, only the success of Bell Beaker apparently turned brachycephaly into an important ethnic marker. Hooton (1947) described Bell Beaker as ‘a Nordic-Alpine cross grown taller and more rugged than either parental races through hybrid vigour’. Coon pointed out the formative blend didn’t occur in Britain since there the brachycephalous Alpine element, an essential ingredient, was still lacking. The nasal convexity and occasionally flattened occiput of the Bell Beaker type was perhaps qualified more correctly by Coon as Dinaric, though this doesn’t resolve the Bell Beaker origin either. Some Dinaric-like characteristics may indeed be reminiscent to admixtures dragged into the west during the Neolithic, though their ultimate origin remains unresolved.
Even in the Carpatian Basin, where Dinaric traits still prevail nowadays, this physical type has a rather recent history:
[…] the appearance of the characteristic planoccipital Taurid type, unknown until then from the Carpathian Basin, in the populations of some later cultures (e.g. Kisapostag and Gáta-Wieselburg cultures) suggests a mixture [of Bell Beaker people] with the local population (Zoffmann, 2000)
The Dinaric type was no less the result of dinarization in the wider region of the Carpatian Basin as anywhere else. Evolution may be involved, possibly triggered by a Neolithic tipping point to be associated with cultural developments that vastly surpassed geographic and ethnic boundaries. The cultural link may be illustratied by late-holocene tendencies towards a new custom of cranial deformation, to the result of occipital flattening and (hyper)brachycephaly. Possibly there is a reverse relationship:
A suggestion was that the beginning of artificial cranial deformation was linked to the first appearance of brachycephaly during the Upper Palaeolithic period and a desire of prehistoric men to continue with a preceding “longhead tradition” (Zivanovic, 1982) – Arensburg et al., 1988
Examples of this fashion pop up first in a wide range of Neolithic societies. Remarkably, the alleged cultural isolation of the Americas, already contradicted by contemporaneous Neolithic culture, is turned on its head by the practice of cranial deformation that once flourished with an incidence of 90% of the total population in some regions. The possible relation to real brachycephaly is eg. corroborated by the reported association of the practice of cranial deformation with Armenians and Pueblo Indians. Brachycephaly is represented today in the midwest and among many of the northwestern tribes, especially, though not exclusively, associated with Na-Dené languages. This group allegedly belongs to the much broader Dené–Caucasian superfamily, which also contains the North Caucasian languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, and Yeniseian languages, thus establishing the only major linguistic connection of populations on both sides of the Bering Sea. Large linguistic families are commonly associated with more advanced cultural groupings and at least the Na-Dené grouping on the Eurasian side are remarkable for their often ancient link with the Neolithic way of life. A chain of cultures thus appears to have participated in both cranial deformation and the holocene transition towards brachycephaly and Neolithic culture. Cranial deformation was fashionable in the Yeniseaian contact zone of Dené–Caucasian and the Afanasevo culture, often considered ancestral to the Tocharian branch of Indo-European populations. The custom also penetrated into the largely contemporaneous North-West Caspian steppe area in Russia, populated by the allegedly Indo-European Catacomb culture more to the west. Dating issues of human bones previously attributed an excessive age to both cultures, due to lower 14C values on their attested ‘fluvial’ menu compared to terrestal samples. Only nowadays such an enigmatic eastern origin can be dismissed in favor of a quick eastward expansion of Indo-European cultures, reaching Afanasevo territory not before 2500 BC – thus indeed being slightly younger than Catacomb culture.
Most 14C dates of human bones of the Early Catacomb and East Manych Catacomb culture are older than expected. […] The consumption of river food is the basis of the reservoir effect in the collagen of human bone.
Using these corrections, we conclude that the historical time interval for the Early Catacomb culture is 2600–2350 cal BC, instead of 3300/2900–2450 cal BC, and for the East Manych Catacomb culture is 2500–2000 cal BC, instead of 2900/2800–2300 cal BC. (Shishlina et al., 2007)
Indo European culture and populations travelled west to east in Asia, making it even more remarkable that cranial deformation apparently travelled in opposite direction. Or maybe the fashion was older along the Atlantic rim and part of the transition of Mediterranean and Atlantic megalithic cultures to Bell Beaker culture? In Malta this cultural change was indeed accompanied by the first western attestation of cranial deformation.
Whatever happened, at the end the once well-established Cro-Magnon type simply disappeared:
Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. (Brace, 2005)
Next to cranial deformation, a truly ‘evolutionary’ origin of brachycephalic skulls may have been obscured by another environmental, ie. epigenetic element. Plasticity can be demonstrated by historic fluctuations of the cranial index (a ratio of skull length to width):
[…] factors such as climate, as well as cultural change (such as increased tool development and use) might have led to changes in skull morphology in late Neolithic/early Bronze Age Britain (Brodie 1994:80)
Brodie and other researchers found that: Cranial Index does seem to correlate positively with temperature and negatively with humidity
Brodie speculated that Neolithic cranial morphology was influenced by these cold, damp conditions. In contrast, during the early Bronze Age (2480 cal BC- 1450 cal BC), the climate was apparently drier. Brodie argues that as a result, the gradual increase in the Cranial Index which occurred in northwestern Europe during the Neolithic and early Bronze Age could have been in response to climatic improvement (Bartels, 1998)
These climatological fluctuations can’t explain wider tendencies towards simultaneous cranial changes in disparate locations, as has been expressed in the investigation on the changes in Crete already mentioned above:
An alternative interpretation implicating the thermoregulatory model of Beals et al. (1984) and adaptation to colder climatic conditions carries less weight. (Nafplioti, 2012)
Whatever the cultural and possibly climatologic causes, accelerated cranial evolution must have been involved. Initially, since Neanderthal, those changes seem to concentrate on enlargements of the frontal lobe, but a profound structural reorganization seems to occur only much later, including the overall brain shape, an increased cerebellum and – remarkably! – a decreased brain mass since 10k years ago. Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of a 28,000-year-old early modern human, ‘Cro Magnon 1’, that provided further evidence for the theory that the human brain has been shrinking: the brain was found to be about 15-20% larger than our brains.
Mean cerebellum volume in Neandertals (106.35 ~12.32 cm3) is both absolutely and relatively smaller than the mean for recent humans (139.76 ~2.54 cm3). Additionally, a plot of NetBrain against CBLM (Fig. 5) clarifies that CQ in Neandertals is low also because the rest of the brain […] is large, compared with the recent human sample […]. Cro-Magnon 1 […] embodies the archaic pattern of a relatively large NetBrain and a relatively small cerebellum. (Weaver et al., 2005)
The reduction of endocranial capacity of modern humans, except for the cerebellum, is significant and runs counter to the common perception of an evolutionary tendency towards ‘bigger brains’:
[…]within the past 10,000 years the average endocranial volume in European females reduced from a mean of 1502 ml to a recent value of 1241 ml. This decrease of approximately 240 ml in 10,000 years is nearly 36 times the rate of increase during the previous 800,000 years. (Hawks, 2011)
The volume of Ötzi’s brain fits this picture, since despite his short stature (~159 cm) his brain size was still well above the modern average:
With 1535 cm3, it lies markedly above today’s male average of approximately 1450 cm3. (Bernhard, 1994)
Brain size relates mathematically to body size, though this doesn’t diminish the value of a bigger brains. True, studies have found a very small relationship between brain size and intelligence, and many other factors affect brain intelligence. Indeed, some take the reduction as an indication of evolutionary progress of one kind or another:
The evolution of smaller brains in many recent human populations must have resulted from selection upon brain size itself or on other features more highly correlated with brain size than are gross body dimensions (Hawks, 2011)
At least, all seems to indicate that in general brain reduction does not affect mental capacities, with one important exception: the cerebellum:
In the australopithecines and early members of the genus Homo, the cerebral hemispheres were large in proportion to the cerebellum, compared with other hominoids. This trend continued in Middle and Late Pleistocene humans, including Neandertals and Cro-Magnon 1, who have the largest cerebral hemispheres relative to cerebellum volume of any primates, including earlier and Holocene humans. (Weaver, 2005)
Did investigators overlook the possibility that overall brain shrinkage and an increased cerebellum may be interrelated?
The high energy cost of the human brain is generally considered an important evolutionary constraint to brain development:
The energy demands (kcal/g/min) of brain and other neural tissues are extremely high—approximately 16 times that of skeletal muscle. Consequently, the evolution of large brain size in the human lineage came at a very high metabolic cost
Brain metabolism accounts for ~20% to 25% of resting metabolic rate (RMR) in an adult human body. This is far more than the 8% to 10% observed in other primate species and still more than the 3% to 5% allocated to the brain by other (nonprimate) mammals (Leonard et al., 2007)
The extremely high neuron ratio of the cerebellum thus implies an even higher energy cost to humans than the grey matter of the cerebral cortex. For this reason an increased cerebellum would require overall brain reduction to allow humans to remain at the same level of metabolic cost. Genetic correlation of brain size with body mass or stature does not rely on evolutionary changes, so a selective process must have enforced a new energetic trade-off due to the increased cerebellum.
Apparently, some parts of the brain are more easily “compressed” than others. The remarkable increase of the cerebellum in modern humans is incompatable with the traditional view on its function, that merely involved motor control. An evolutionary increase of the cerebellum is nowadays deemed necessary for modern humans, allegedly being congruent to an increase of human skills. It has already been established the cerebellum has a much larger contribution, including linguistic functions:
The precise nature of the cerebellar involvement in linguistic processing is not yet clear.
[…] results led to the clinical awareness of a modulating role of the cerebellum in various language processes.(De Smet et al., 2007)
Other cognitive processes important to modern life may be involved as well, and actually there is nothing ‘inferior’ about the cerebellum to contradict this suspicion:
The cerebellum is a very densely packed and deeply folded subcortical brain structure situated at the back of the brain […] In humans, it accounts for 10-15% of brain weight, 40% of brain surface area, and 50% of the brain’s neurons. (Fawcett & Nicolson, 2008)
We have to be aware, though, that brain reduction may also be part of a simple ‘domestication process’. Down’s syndrome (DS) inborn pathology also features brain reduction averaging ~17% according to Pinter et al., 2001, using a set of apparently low-average comparison subjects. However, DS brain reduction reaches a 33% peak for the cerebellum. Indeed, a flattened occiput symptomatic for Down’s syndrome (DS) can’t even be attributed to a disproportionate reduction of the occipital lobes. Remarkably, DS overall brain reduction compares to that of modern man since Neanderthal and early AMH, and is only truly regressive for the reduced cerebellum.
An increased role of the cerebellum also implies an improved interconnectivity with the cerebral cortex, and related changes to optimize the brain structure towards shorter ‘communication lines’ all the way to the frontal parts implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making and moderating social behavior:
Neuroanatomical studies showed neuronal pathways linking the cerebellum with autonomic, limbic and associative regions of the supratentorial cortex. More specifically, cortical areas send information to the cerebellum via the basilar pons, and deep cerebellar nuclei send information back to prefrontal areas through dentatothalamic pathways (De Smet et al., 2007)
Could this be the secret behind Ötzi’s slightly mesocephalic skull, and the general post-neolithic tendency towards brachycephaly and a flatter occiput? The sudden appearance of cranial deformation is a testimony of the reluctance by which this physical change was received by contemporanous populations. But the costs of an improved brain may have been heavier than beauty. If current differences defined by the Down syndrome may be any indication, collateral ‘damage’ of a shrunken brain could have been in the realm of behavior, such as an individual loss in the capacity of self-determination, or an increased sense of social dependence? – what for sure would be a comfortable advantage to some in a more advanced society that takes care of most of their needs. The contemporaneous reduction of the strong posterior projection in the ‘bun’ of earlier sapiens and Neanderthal may also suggest that overall cerebral reduction may have affected the occipital lobes more than other parts. Since this location is associated with REM sleep and dreaming, it might be tempting to link this specific reduction to the emotionally less complicated rationality necessary to cope with the rapid changes of a Neolithic world. More specifically, would decreased occipital lobes have reduced the importance of dreamed reality in daily life?
So far it is hard to relate cerebellar volume to mental functions or capabilities. Current populations apparently have very similar abilities to “manage complexity,” and studies on the between-group variability of cerebellar volume for living people are rare and incomplete. Tang et al. (2010) reported clearly visible ethnic differences between the Chinese and Caucasian populations, where the former has a relatively shorter but wider brain atlas compared to the widely-used ICBM152 template, based on Caucasian brains. This picture corresponds to more brachycephaly measured in east Asiatic populations. Comparative information on cerebellum volume would be more than welcome to evaluate modern variation.
The apparent inverse relationship between reduced brain mass and increased cerebellum is just one of the many changes in the human physique that seems to have initiated during the Neolithic. Evidence of genetic sweep tends to suggest genetic change was more important after the introduction of agriculture than during the previous Upper Paleolithic transition towards anatomically modern humans. Indeed, the genome of Ötzi already supplied essential insights on the accelerated evolutionary change that hit humanity since the (Late) Neolithic. Likewise, Ötzi’s mesocephaly occurred in this critical period of neuroanatomical change. Hopefully, a thorough investigation on the tissues of Ötzi’s brain will shed more light on the evolutionary mechanisms behind this issue in the near future.
- Ash & Robinson – The Emergence of Humans, 2011, link
- Arensburg et al. – Cranial deformation and trephination in the Middle East, 1988, link
- Arsuaga et al. – The Sima de los Huesos crania (Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain). A comparative study, 1996, link
- Anthony – The Horse, The Wheel, And Language, 2009, link
- Bartels – A Test of Non-metrical Analysis as Applied to the ‘Beaker Problem’, 1998, link
- Bernhard – Anthropological Studies on the Mummy from the Ötztal Alps, 1994, link
- Bischof – Total Dream Loss: A Distinct Neuropsychological Dysfunction after Bilateral PCA Stroke, 2004, link
- Brace et al. – The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, 2005, link
- Brace – Cro-Magnon and Qafzeh — vive la Difference, 1996, link
- Brown – Recent human evolution in East Asia and Australasia, 1992, link
- Charles – Back into the north: the radiocarbon evidence for the human re-colonisation of the north-western Ardennes after the Last Glacial Maximum, 1996, link
- Charles – Late Magdalenian chronology and faunal exploitation in the North-Western Ardennes”, Ruth Charles, 1998, link
- Chambon & Salanova – Chronologie des sépultures du IIIe millénaire dans le bassin de la Seine, 1996, link
- Crawford – Sumer and the Sumerians (second edition), 2004, link
- De Smet et al. – The Cerebellum and Language: The Story So Far, 2007, link
- Fana et al. – Sexual dimorphism and asymmetry in human cerebellum: An MRI-based morphometric study, 2010, link
- Fawcett & Nicolson – Dyslexia: the role of the cerebellum, 2008, link
- Guy et al. – Deux Cranes trépanés de la sépulture collective mégalithique de la Chaussée-Tirancourt (Somme), 1989, link
- Hawks – Selection for smaller brains in Holocene human evolution, 2011, link
- Kutschera – Radiocarbon dating of the Iceman Ötzi with accelerator mass spectrometry, 2001, link
- Lee et al. – Emerging genetic patterns of the european neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany, 2012, link
- Leonard et al. – Effects of Brain Evolution on Human Nutrition and Metabolism, 2007, link
- Lichardus et al. – La protohistoire de l’Europe, 1987
- Morelli et al. – A Comparison of Y-Chromosome Variation in Sardinia and Anatolia Is More Consistent with Cultural Rather than Demic Diffusion of Agriculture, 2010, link
- Munro – Prehistoric Scotland and its place in European civilization; being a general introduction to the “County histories of Scotland, 1899, link
- Nafplioti – Late Minoan IB destructions and cultural upheaval on Crete:
A bioarchaeological perspective, 2012, link
- Panagiaris – A Physico-Anthropological Study of Skeletal Material from Neolithic Age to Hellenistic Times in Central Greece and Surrounding Region (dissertation), 1993, link, review by Dienekes Anthropology Blog – A physico-anthropological study of skeletal material from Neolithic age to Hellenistic times in Central Greece and surrounding region, July 22, 2012, link
- Pinter et al. – Neuroanatomy of Down’s Syndrome: A High-Resolution MRI Study, 2001, link
- Ponce de León et al. – Neanderthal brain size at birth provides insights into the evolution of human life history, 2008, link
- Rightmire – Homo in the Middle Pleistocene: Hypodigms, Variation, and Species Recognition, 2008, link
- Rightmire – Middle and later Pleistocene hominins in Africa and Southwest Asia, 2009, link
- Rosas et al. – Endocranial Occipito-temporal Anatomy of SD-1219 From the Neandertal El Sidron Site (Asturias, Spain), 2008, link
- Shishlina et al. – The Catacomb Cultures of the North-West Caspian Steppe: 14C Chronology, Reservoir Effect, and Paleodiet, 2007, link
- Soltysiak – Physical anthropology and the “Sumerian problem”, 2004, link
- Tang et al. – The construction of a Chinese MRI brain atlas: a morphometric comparison study between Chinese and Caucasian cohorts, 2010, link
- Weaver – Reciprocal evolution of the cerebellum and neocortex in fossil humans, 2005, link
- Zoffmann – Anthropological sketch of the prehistoric population of the Carpathian Basin, 2000, link
The discovery that artery diseases were not confined to modern times, but even affected people in the Neolithic, may come as a relief to those tired of social retaliation. Some people are simply more vulnerable to artery diseases than others, and this vulnerability turned out to be ancient rather than the exclusive result of modern abuse. This discovery was the outcome of painstaking investigation on ‘Ötzi’, the famous 3300 BC ‘Iceman’ that dry-freezed and mummified in the mountains of Tirol.
Most surprising of all, perhaps, is that Ötzi carried a marker, or predisposition, for heart disease. And this is in spite of an active lifestyle and probably a healthy, balanced diet. Yet, clumps op calcium were found in the walls of his blood vessels, indicating artherial sclerosis. That is, his arteries looked like those of a forty something year old in the 21st century, not something we expected. This shows that these are not simply civilization diseases, due to bad diet and lack of excercise, but are genetically influenced conditions. (Thomas Tartaron, 2012)
The health state of Ötzi proves that artery diseases ocurred much earlier than previously thought to be possible for people living in conditions that supposedly approximated our natural state. This implies genetic protection against artery diseases is not the original condition. Health issues can’t always be ‘prevented’ by merciless excercises and diets beforehand, since apparently our shared genetic heritage is part of the blame. Built-in desire for sugars and fats leads to health in lean times but disease in times of plenty. However, the ‘invention’ of Neolithic food production, or the introduction of animal husbandry and crops, also supplied additions to ancient diets that may be regarded as the precursors of modern fatty food. Mere abundance must have caused evolutionary proven concepts to have turned against our contemporary genetic heritage. Instead, the current possibility of some to avoid artery diseases in the midst of plenty should be viewed upon as a potential example of modern adaptation.
A changed food pattern was only one of the Neolithic triggers for the rapid spread of genes that proved successful in the new environment. Some of these genes show recent allele modifications, such as those for Lactase Persistence (LP), that comes in several unrelated haplotypes that are each characterized by the presence of a strong selective sweep – the most common being defined by the T-13910 allele of the H98-haplotype. Actually, this particular LP haplotype supplies an impressive testimony of recent genetic change. While presently common in Europe and thought to be introduced in the Neolithic, LP was not reported on Ötzi. Indeed, in his time LP related selective processes must just have started since the very first traces of LP in Europe were dated only a little younger:
In this study, we have investigated lactase persistence of 26 out of 46 individuals from Late Neolithic through analysis of ancient South-West European DNA samples, obtained from two burials in the Basque Country originating from 5000 to 4500 YBP. This investigation revealed that these populations had an average frequency of lactase persistence of 27%, much lower than in the modern Basque population, which is compatible with the concept that Neolithic and post-Neolithic evolutionary pressures by cattle domestication and consumption of dairy products led to high lactase persistence in Southern European populations. (Plantinga et al., 2011)
Some other genes may have been around for much longer, only to receive their current advantage in a more ‘modern’ setting. One recent study suggests genetic differences of the (male-only) Y-chromosome may be of the latter category. Y-chromosomes are usually categorized into a system of haplogroups that each feature a characteristic signature of random markers, that thus convey deeper genetic differences:
Of nine haplogroups identified, two (R1b1b2 and I) accounted for roughly 90% of the Y chromosome variants among British men. Carriers of haplogroup I had about a 50% higher age-adjusted risk of coronary artery disease than did men with other Y chromosome lineages […]
The human Y chromosome is associated with risk of coronary artery disease in men of European ancestry, possibly through interactions of immunity and inflammation. (Charchar et al., 2012)
Already in 1974 Friedman and Rosenman concluded in their famous book Type A behavior and your health that men with Type A personality were at elevated risk for cardiovascular disease. Type A behavior is a stress-producing behavior, characterized by aggressiveness, perfectionism, unwillingness to relinquish control, and a sense of time urgency.
[…] men with Type A personalities were less well adapted to the pressures of the workplace than were their Type B collegues. (Barnett, 2002)
Environmental stress is always important for the interplay between selective forces and adaptation, and with Type A personalities this is not any different:
Specifically, Stoney and Engebretson and Siegman et al. have suggested that for men dominance and aggression interact to increase CHD risk, whereas aggression alone (especially indirect expression) is particularly toxic to women.
However, although the basis of Type A behavior can be found in personality and temperament, its expression is dependent on the unique context and environment of the individual. (Wrzesniewski et al., 2002)
The male-specific genetic component of Type A behavior should logically be found on the Y-chromosome, where cladistic genetic differences can be labeled easily using the ISOGG phylogeny of Y-chromosome haplogroups. Indeed, as could be expected from above favorable results on CHD for haplogroup R1b1b2, investigation on other haplogroup R-clade Y-chromosomes suggested a lower inclination to Type A behavior:
Studies show that personality dimensions such as aggression are influenced by genetic factors and that allelic variants located on the Y chromosome influence such behavior.
[…] comparisons allowed us to detect an association of the haplogroups R2 […] and R1a1 […] with lower self-reported aggression mean scores (Shoaib Shah et al, 2008)
Studies confirm that anger and aggression are significantly correlated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD):
The proportion of healthy population studies demonstrating a significant harmful effect of anger and hostility on CHD was 28.0% – Chida & Steptoe, 2009
In this context it may be relevant that two of Europe’s most controversal conquerors, Napoleon and Hitler, attested the same haplogroup E1b1b, rare in Western Europe. Napoleon’s clade could be refined to E-M34 or E1b1b1c1*, what in the current ISOGG phylogeny (2012) is equivalent to E1b1b1b2a1. Their abject disposition to dominance, nothing short of their abject glorification by some, may have had a Y-chromosome component, that in their specific cases may have been one of the culprits of their curious pathologies. Hitler once collapsed after a severe altercation in 1941, clutching his chest. Though no evidence of significant cardiovascular (or other) disease could be found, and normally attributed to Hitler’s hypochondriasis, this rather illustrates Type A personality as a cardiac risk all of its own.
Other deadly ailments are suspect of being related to Type A personalities, such as peptic ulcer. Stress has been demonstrated to cause the production of excess stomach acid, where the immune system is unable to clear subsequent infections of bacterial strains like H. pylori that thrive in an acidic environment. Much of Ötzi’s intestinal DNA belong not to him but to a bacterium associated with Lyme disease.
[…] all children and adolescents with Lyme disease and chronic abdominal pain had evidence of inflammation on biopsy in the stomach, duodenum, or colon. (Fried et al., 1996)
Hitler’s digestion problems prompted him to become a vegetarian. So far his stomach complaints, together with his fits of rage and purported cardiac lesion, have been unsuccessfully linked with syphilis. Full-blown peptic ulcer is thought to have run in the family of his Y-chromosome ‘relative’ Napoleon. Probably mistaken for cancer (the autopsy report of 1821 stated that Napoleon had a chronic stomach ulcer but died of a cancer of his stomach), the latter’s father and grandfather died of it too:
I believe that Napoleon had a chronic peptic ulcer and that gross haemorrhage from the ulcer and consequent circulatory collapse were the immediate cause of death.
This man, who had been full of burning energy and vitality found himself abruptly cut off from any outlet for his physical and mental powers. His health declined and he developed a chronic peptic ulcer of the stomach which perforated. (Murray, 1971)
Type A personality may have been the direct cause of Ötzi’s death in a quite different way. Reconstruction of Ötzi’s crime scene suggested he was murdered, probably by someone he knew. Preservation of red blood cells found in the right hand wound tissue and at the arrowhead entry wound on the Iceman’s back, and fibrin, an essential protein formed during the blood clotting process, strongly indicate his wounds were still fresh when he died. He couldn’t have run far from his assassins, and his costly copper axe would have been robbed if the murderer didn’t have a very good reason to not bring it back to his people as a trophee.
Would it be feasible to link differences in male behavior to genetic differences in the Y-chromosome? It has long been denied the Y-chromosome could be useful for anything else but basic male physiology. Like I already explained elsewhere on this blog, most hard-boiled practices to dismiss the Y-chromosome as junk DNA without any function doesn’t have any other base than ignorance, or lack of knowledge if this sounds any better. According to the comparative investigations of Hughes et al. evolutionary forces must have been at work on the Y-chromosome even after the split of chimps and humans. This year Hughes et al. came up with new evidence:
“The genes that are still on the human Y chromosome have been around for a long time, and that suggests they must actually be doing something useful,” said Jobling. Unfortunately, scientists don’t know what that is. “The Y chromosome has been neglected,” he said. (The Scientist, February 22, 2012)
From an evolutionary perspective, replacement of purported ‘genetic improvements’ is rarely straightforward and often prone to genetic drawbacks, coincidently inherent to the change. At the individual level of the human ‘organism’ type A personalities now appear to be ‘deleterious’ within the new, self-inflicted modern environment, and now tentatively associated with both identified Neolithic haplogroups (G2a and E1b) that were possibly subject to purifying selection, their decline may even be as old as the Neolithic itself. Indeed, systematic evidence of aggression is lacking in pre-Neolithic societies:
Recent finds in northern Syria […] suggest that violence flared as urban life first began to take hold between 4000 B.C.E. and 3200 B.C.E.
University of Cambridge archaeologists found three mass graves dating from about 3800 B.C.E. to 3600 B.C.E. at Tell Brak. The oldest and largest grave was at least 20 meters long and 4 meters wide, and included a jumbled pile of at least several hundred people—by far the earliest undisputed example of an event of mass violence. (Lawner, 2012)
Suddenly, due to cultural change, the aggressive expression of ancient genes thus turned catastrophic against survival.
If Type A personalities have a fully genetic cause, there must have been a time when their advantages outweighted the effect of possible deleterious circumstances. Now cultural conditions changed, one might wonder why their genes didn’t get extinct altogether. Or was selective Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup decline over history rather an event-driven event? It is still possible that great turmoils in history were especially disadvantageous to the reproduction of certain personalties or metabolisms. What was the haplogroup of those especially prone to engage in wars and perish in ‘heroic’ acts? Their continued, almost disproportionate presence in the power-scene should make us wonder about the nature of Y-chromosome haplogroup survival. Deep human tragedy must have been involved in the process, but also personal successes and good, talented people that succumbed to the laws of nature.
Balanced selection on YDNA may have been an issue: Hitler, or Napoleon, or Stalin for that matter that like Ötzi was part of the G2a clade, could never have perpetrated their bloodshed if they weren’t facilitated by the contemporanous non-Hg E1b1b1 and non-G2a majorities of the powerful nations they usurped. Their rise to power had in common that it was hosted by nations that imported their dictators from genetic backwaters elsewhere, respectively Austria, Corsica and Georgia.
Balanced selection constitutes a useful mechanism to avoid irreversible genetic loss. Nature wasn’t always able to avoid the reduction of genetic variability during extreme circumstances, or ‘bottle necks,’ often considered a major cause of a species’ extinction. A certain optimal balance of ‘competing’ genetic modifications, for YDNA chromosomes each marked by defining haplogroup mutations, then guarantees the preservation of basal genetic variability. In this view, low frequencies of a certain haplogroup would represent equilibrium rather than imminent extinction. This may indeed be illustrated by individuals and lineages carrying Y-chromosomes E1b1b and G2a, that simply can’t be marginalized in European history in any way. For instance, the ‘Ötzi-type’ Y-chromosome of the executed French king Louis XVI, whose Y-chromosome represents the House of Bourbon and the ancient Capetian dynasty it’s a branch of, quite a notable lineage that has its earliest known ancestor in the Frankish count Robert of Hesbaye (770–807):
The uncommon mtDNA sequence retrieved can be attributed to a N1b haplotype, while the novel Y-chromosome haplotype belongs to haplogroup G2a. (Lalueza-Fox et al., 2011)
The purported ‘neutrality’ of the Y-chromosome as an unbiased migrational marker probably won’t stand further investigation on personality and coronary artery disease. Fatty and unhealthy diets that are commonly associated with the emergence of productive economy are likely to have triggered selective pressures beneficial to Y-chromosome Hg R, and deleterious to those carrying eg. marker Hg I. But it should be noted that culturally defined selective pressures are rarely universal. R1b-type Y-chromosomes attested for Egypt’s great 18th dynasty didn’t help R1b to become abundant anywhere in the Middle East. Bottom line is that Y-chromosomes marked by haplogroups G2a and E1b1b1, apparently became rare swiftly from one moment to the other – and all being rare is always very special, for better or worse. Culturally defined negative interaction (competition) that previously caused near extinction in a process of purifying selection, may thus also revert to positive interaction at any time. In other words, balanced selection may have provided favorable conditions for the survival of rare haplogroups that apparently prevailed in the past:
Y-chromosomal analyses permitted confirmation of the existence in Spain approximately 7,000 y ago of two haplogroups previously associated with the Neolithic transition: G2a and E1b1b1a1b. (Lacan et al. – 2011b)
Up to now the presence of most attested ancient Y-haplotypes in Europe tends to be explained by the Neolithic advance, and these G2a and E1b1b1a1b (E-V13, not particularly close related to Napoleon’s E-M34) samples of Avellaner Cave in Cogolls, Catalonia, Spain, are no exception. I am no longer convinced, and not just because this way only few current haplogroups remain for being attributed to pre-Neolithic populations:
Indeed, hg I is the only major lineage for which a Paleolithic origin is generally accepted, but it comprises only 18% of European Y chromosomes (Balaresque et al., 2010)
A growing body of evidence points at the importance of recent evolution, and rapid changes occurred in the human genome that can’t be explained by migration. In september John Hawks will present a conference paper at the meeting of the European Society of Human Evolution in Bordeaux, to reveal his own view on recent evolution, migration and Neandertal ancestry regarding the Tyrolean Iceman:
[Ötzi] has substantially greater sharing with Neandertals than any other recent person we have ever examined. (John Hawks, 2012-08-15)
It should be clear that Ötzi thus can’t be put away lightly as a representative of Neolithic immigrants in Europe at all! The context of this result was already defined years before by his party of investigators:
The processes leading to modernity involved the entire human species, and were based on the ethnogenic principle of communication and reticulation among populations. (Wolpoff et al., 2004)
At this point we might question the presumed homogeneity of pre-Neolithic DNA, or does Ötzi show us this is all a misconception? The short-lasting success of the attested Neolithic Y-chromosomes doesn’t make the preposition of pre-Neolithic homogeneity more viable. Mere gut feelings? Why not, this year it was found that intuitive logic isn’t necessarily a bad thing:
[…] despite the widespread bias and logical errors, people at least implicitly detect that their heuristic response conflicts with traditional normative considerations. I propose that this conflict sensitivity calls for the postulation of logical and probabilistic knowledge that is intuitive – and that is activated automatically when people engage in a reasoning task. (De Neys, 2012)
Simply put, intuitive logic allows humans to disagree with the limited array of available, or permitted, logical answers. Exploring new possibilities should be the next step. Now, what severe pre-Neolithic bottleneck, if any, could have caused the hypothetic reduction of Mesolithic and Paleolithic Y-chromosome survival and variability thus, that now all should group within a single Y-chromosome clade, marked by haplogroup I? The same applies to pre-Neolithic mtDNA, that turned out overwhelmingly of haplogroup U5. Autosomal DNA so far suggests Mesolithic populations predominantly survive in Northern Europe. Still, Ötzi didn’t have any of these ‘northern’ characteristics and neither was his DNA shifted to any eastern origin that would indicate descendency of Neolithic immigrants. Aren’t we really seeing true European ‘population substructure here? In which case we might also witness the contemporary ethnic expansion of northern Mesolithic populations.
Indeed, new insights suggest the Neolithic stage of human lifestyle was less ‘revolutionary’ than commonly assumed. A mosaic of ‘Neolithic’ achievements has been attested in pre-Neolithic societies all over the world, not all of which were accumulated by the first agriculturists, the most striking example being ceramics. While the Near Eastern origin of agriculture was characterized by an aceramic Neolithic stage, there were social contexts for ceramic figurative art in Europe since the Upper Palaeolithic:
A small number of Gravettian ceramics were discovered at Krems-Wachtberg in Austria. Krems-Wachtberg is widely accepted as culturally related to Pavlovian sites in Moravia […] 32,437-31,157 cal BP
Recent finds of 36 ceramic artifacts from the archaeological site of Vela Spila, Croatia, offer the first evidence of ceramic figurative art in late Upper Palaeolithic Europe, c. 17,500–15,000 years before present
Ceramic hearths found in late Aurignacian levels at Klisoura cave in Greece did not yield discernable ceramic “art,” but do suggest the emergence of a ceramic technology in the early Upper Palaeolithic. (Farbstein et al, 2012)
China was well ahead in the production of pottery long before the arrival of agriculture:
Here, we describe the dating of the early pottery from Xianrendong Cave, Jiangxi Province, China […] The radiocarbon ages of the archaeological contexts of the earliest sherds are 20,000 to 19,000 calendar years before the present, 2000 to 3000 years older than other pottery found in East Asia and elsewhere. The occupations in the cave demonstrate that pottery was produced by mobile foragers who hunted and gathered during the Late Glacial Maximum. These vessels may have served as cooking devices. The early date shows that pottery was first made and used 10 millennia or more before the emergence of agriculture. (Xiaohong Wu et al., 2012)
In Greece and probably Albania and Macedonia, there are some indications towards an aceramic neolithic economy that developed independently from the near east, and a subsequent continuous development through Protosesklo into the typical painted ware cultures of the Balkanic neolithic. In the periphery of this cultural core the Presesklo represented a less sophisticated pottery tradition that may suggest the existence of an even older Balcanic Neolithic that still awaits discovery (Lichardus), and probably played a role in the development of the Mediterranean Cardial tradition. The immigration of Asiatic agriculturists is far from clear, notwithstanding the long-standing practice of framing Neolithic groups in existing narratives without overall examination of their archaeological context, frequency, usage and meaning.
A plausible explanation of the ‘otherness’ of the earliest Neolithic groups may lie in the concept of ethnicity. Commonly referred to as ‘Neolithic’, both Cardial and LBK may actually represent the arrival of a new, very visible ethnic element. The local, less visible Mesolithic element didn’t necessarily disappear, in which case these gradually accepted more Neolithic attributes. A complicated convergence process started, that ultimately may only be disentangled by genetic investigation. Ötzi is just a testimony of the genetic situation in the Late Neolithic or early Bronze Age, and despite his extreme occidental DNA shift ethnically he is often taken for granted as ‘Neolithic’. However, those advocating a limited variability of Mesolihic mtDNA typically ignored early reports of Chandler et al. (2005) on a clear abundance of the quite modern-European mtDNA haplogroup H samples in Portugal, for years the only Atlantic site successfully explored for paleogenetic remains. Only this year we can celebrate the investigation of Hervella et al. (2012), that confirmed H6 for hunter gatherers in La Chora, and more mtDNA H in La Pasiega, two Paleolithic sites in Cantabria, northern Spain. At least the Atlantic rim thus emerges as an undeniable source of modern mtDNA. Instead, the Pitted Ware Culture (PWC) in the coastal areas of Southern and Eastern Middle Sweden, representing a local hunter-gatherer complex whose pottery style and general subsistence patterns bear the greatest similarities with groups East of the Baltic Sea, attested haplogroups U4 and V (Skoglund et al., 2012).
In general, Neolithic frequencies of ‘modern’ mtDNA haplogroup H are a triffle too low for assuming straightforward Neolithic continuity, and more so in central Europe, where Neolithic mtDNA is outright inconsistent with modern European populations. The majority of the European populations have an overall haplogroup H frequency of 40%–50%, while the highest Neolithic mtDNA H readings were ‘Atlantic’: 37% in Grenollers, Catalonia (Sampietro et al. 2007). Whatever the momentum that boosted modern mtDNA, it must have been part of the Neolithic decline. However, there is more about the purported extinction of Mesolithic populations that defies logic. Two successive reduction processes or hypothetized bottlenecks, the first linked to a central European, pre-Neolithic population decline, and the second linked to a late-Neolithic population decline – that ‘thus’ affected ‘Neolithized’ native populations as well – should have made it quite difficult for rare contemporaneous pre-Neolithic haplogroups to survive. So, what could have brought two rare paleogenetic hg F*(xG,H,I,J,K) among the Neolithic population of Derenburg, against just one proven G2a3 sample? It couldn’t be excluded this F* isn’t actually extinct IJ*, and thus ancestral to the ‘European’ haplogroup I. However, it is hard to believe that Mesolithic F* jumped over to Neolithic populations, only to become extinct afterwards both in Mesolithic and Neolithic populations. Indeed, YDNA F* is nowadays nearly extinct in Europe, and though rare in the Near East recently most of its F* has been identified as northern Iranian IJ* (Grugni et al., 2012). This should illustrate the difficulties involved in identifying any migrational origin of Y-chromosome haplogroups. On the other hand, G2a haplogroups survived almost all over – albeit in quite modest quantities. With or without the proposed Mesolithic extinction scenarios, it would thus be much more feasible to associate just Hg F* with the YDNA of Neolithic immigrants!
Would this result imply that no pre-Neolithic YDNA can be attested at all in the LBK sites? Actually, the assumption that G2a is a Neolithic marker was based on very flimsy grounds. Recent investigation by Rootsi et al. (2012) didn’t reveal any subclade substructure remotely similar to the European substructure of haplogroup R1b1b2. One exception is G2a3-L497 that ‘essentially occur in Europe where they likely originated’. Afghanistan’s low frequencies of G2a3 are of the same order as haplogroup I2b, presumed Mesolithic in Europe (Haber et al. – 2012), hardly an argument for any specific Asiatic origin at all. Moreover, already 7000 years ago ‘Neolithic’ YDNA G2a was suffiently regionalized in Europe to allow comparative analyses of diverging STR haplotypes for Avellaner cave, Cogolls, and other ancient Neolithic sequences. The first observation is one of decline:
Analysis of shared haplotypes showed that the G2a haplotype found in ancient specimens is rare in current populations: its frequency is less than 0.3% (Lacan et al. – 2011b)
This indeed corresponds to the present rarity in Europe of the Avellaner haplogroup G2a, and E1b for that matter, though a lack of correlation of Avellaner haplotypes with neighboring regions in western Europe, including France (Table S3, Lacan et al. 2011b), is equally striking, and appears to be in contradiction with migrational patterns.
The Neolithic G2a samples of Treilles, France, were recently found to be ‘clearly differentiated’ from the main continental branches of this group. However, assertions towards the ‘predicated’ Neolithic dichotomy, derived from the two migrational routes of Neolithic immigrants, attributed respectiveliy to the continental LBK agriculturists on one hand, and the Mediterranean advance of Neolithic culture on the other hand, rather appear wishful thinking than based on facts.
[…] we analyzed DNA extracted from 53 individuals buried in Cave I of Treilles located in the Grands Causses region, at Saint-Jean-et-Saint-Paul, Aveyron, France […]. The Treilles cultural group is a well identified archeological complex of the late Stone Age period, preserved of any major late Neolithic population movements as suggested by the absence of the Bell–Beaker culture influence in the second part of the third millennium B.C.
22 male individuals were confirmed to belong to the Y-haplogroup previously inferred. As expected from YSTR data, all samples were found to belong to Y-haplogroup G2a except samples 577 and 596, which belong to haplogroup I2a.
The Treilles G2a haplotypes are located at the periphery of the network in a particular branch […] on a Mediterranean branch clearly differentiated from the Caucasian G2a, in which G2a is currently the most frequent in Europe, as high as approximately 30% (Lacan et al. – 2011a)
However tempting to assume a ‘confirmation’ of Neolithic scenarios, we have to be careful and remind the apparent demise of Neolithic DNA that is in utter conflict with traditional assertions that still try to establish Neolithic immigrants as a founding element of the European gene pool. The investigators of Ötzi the Iceman express their concern about rushing (again) to stale explanations for G2a beforehand:
His closest living relatives lived in and near the Alpine regions of Europe, but some are in places like Sardinia and Turkey and elsewhere, sharing similar mutations. Now, this may have to do with various migrations, but we really need to be cautious, because the genetic histories of these people were not particularly well known, so there are lots of potential explanations for why this spread can be very large. (Thomas Tartaron, 2012)
Strictly spoken, there is no imperative archeological argument that predicates a Near Eastern ‘Neolithic’ origin of paleogenetic G2a type Y-chromosomes at all. Even LBK may have been rooted in the Mesolithic of Southeast Europe.
[…] LBK emerged in present western Hungary in the course of culture contact between a ‘yet unknown’ population of hunter-gatherers, the more southern Starveco-Koros-Cris (SKC) groups and later early Vinca.
[…] the general scenario of a regional origin of the LBK is still acceptable to most Central European researchers.
[…] most continent-based archaeologists have never considered any notable population expansions across the Balkanic-Central European border. Also, recent ancient mtDNA evidence certainly does not contradict the hypothesis of an emergence of the LBK within a local population in Transdanubia and/or south-west Slovakia, and the expansion from these territories towards the west and north-east (Gronenborn, 2007)
Similar results were obtained for the mtDNA of prehistoric Treilles, where investigators remain largely ignorant of in situ (older) haplogroups:
Analysis of the FST genetic distances based on HVI variation showed that the Treilles specimens were genetically close to all current European populations.
The study of shared lineages showed furthermore that the Treilles maternal lineages are found in all present-day European populations with percentages as high as nearly 18% (Lacan et al. – 2011a)
The latter may be merely the result of Neolithic reality to retrieve much of the female contribution to local resources, thus debunking the hypothesis of considerable mtDNA immigration anyway:
LBK societies were “patrilocal,” meaning that males tended to stay put in one place while females moved in from other areas to mate with them. (Bentley et al., 2012)
The median joining network of Y-G2a haplotypes for current western European populations (Fig. S5, Lacan et al. – 2011a supplement) only very loosely reflects the traditional Neolithic split in Continental and Mediterranean immigrants: Late Neolithic YDNA of haplogroup G2a in Treilles correlates only partly with current Spanish haplotypes in comparison with North Western and North Central European G2a, while the other part of Spanish G2a has an even more ambiguous correlation with northern haplotypes. Central Mediterranean and South Eastern European haplotypes dominate the central topology of this network, as indeed could be expected for an eastern mediterranean origin of G2a, though from there on all points to a more complicated pattern of genetic exchange and regional variety than anticipated for in a Neolithic context by archeology. At least this doesn’t give the impression of Neolithic YDNA having remained very isolated in regional branches, after their purported advance over separated routes east to west while expanding from a common Neolithic source ‘somewhere east’.
The mere prehistoric omnipresence of G2a-type Y-chromosomes could pose another problem to the concept of a simple, two fold origin in the Neolithic wave of advance:
We generated genetic distance maps to visualize the similarity/distance of the LBK and Derenburg populations
[…] modern-day Turkey, Armenia, Iraq, and Iran demonstrated a clear genetic similarity with the LBK population (Haak et al., 2010)
Unlike R1b, there are no claims for an all-encompassing wave-of-advance substructure of European G2a, nor ready-made mathematic growth and decline scenarios off-the-shelf. Attempts to describe the advance of G2a in the northern branch of the Neolithic advance in terms of a gradual genetic distance as a function of distance, fail to reveal unambiguous subclade differentiation that could be attributed to the Neolithic advance. In a Neolithic scenario, such a lack of subclade substructure in Europe’s YDNA haplogroup G2a distribution may only be explained by massive and intense Neolithic replacement. However, this is not reflected by the latest FST diagrams for autosomal DNA (Keller, Skoglund – 2012), where all modern Western and Central European samples are still in the range between Ötzi and Scandinavian hunter gatherers rather than clustered around near eastern groupings: for modern samples the eastern tilt is almost negligible, while the modern autosomal spectrum tilted considerably to the north in southern and central Europe. Ötzi thus was far from being an immigrant from the east, and from a period that rather preceded considerable admixtures from northern Europe!
LBK skeletons of Derenburg proved to be G2a3 (downstream SNP S126, Haak et al. 2010), while Ötzi’s YDNA groups within haplogroup G2a2 (previously G2a4 in ISOGG 2011), being defined by SNP L91 (Keller et al. 2012, Supplementary Table S7).
We addressed this issue here by analysing the G2a4-defining L91 SNP in 7,797 chromosomes from 30 regions across Europe. Fig. 3d shows the spatial frequency distribution of G2a4 throughout Europe. The highest frequencies (25 and 9%) occur in southern Corsica and northern Sardinia, respectively, (Fig. 3e) while in mainland Europe the frequencies do not reach 1%. (Keller et al. – 2011)
Keller’s percentages doesn’t correct for the unequal distribution of G2a in current populations. Actually, substructure becomes less obvious in more detail. The Treilles G2a population appears to be genetically independent from Central European LBK G2a, though a closer relationship with some of NW European’s rare G2a, and even part of North-Central European G2a, can be discerned. Such overlap already happens in paleogenetic samples. Efforts to group close G2a relatives to Derenburg’s Neolithic LBK fossils in a geographically congruent ‘continental group’ may be corroborated by the Frankish YDNA of Robert of Hesbaye and his royal descendents, and probably also by one of the 7th century AD Frankish skeletons (244F) found in Ergolding, Bavaria. The other Ergolding skeleton, however, groups with Ötzi’s G2a2, that encompasses all men with a double DYS19:
We also observed that sample 244E had previously very rarely observed duplication in the locus DYS19 (alleles 14 and 15). As the same results of independent extractions and PCRs were obtained, we concluded that this finding might be related to the duplicated region of the Y chromosome that is highly homologous with the DYS19 flanking region. Balaresque reported that DYS19 duplications were mainly found in Y-haplogroups G and C3c and this finding is in a perfect accordance with the haplogroup predicted for sample 244E (G2a). (Vanek et al., 2009)
Indeed, early mediterranean contacts up north can’t be excluded and even may have preceded the arrival of LBK in the western Loess in the mysterious pottery culture of La Hoguette. Problematic remains the mere scale of how all main G2a subclades violate the purported Neolithic north-south diachtomy in Europe.
Most of Treilles shared the G2a Y-chromosome haplogroup with Ötzi the Iceman and much of LBK Derenburg: apparently G2a was quite ‘universal’ at the time. But, all replacement scenarios unwittingly presume an extremely high degree of pre-Neolithic Y-chromosome homogeneity in Europe, while actually the opposite may have happened: R1 (ie. R1b and R1a) that ultimately drove a multitude of prehistoric YDNA to (near) extinction. This also includes the ‘Sardinian’ haplogroup I2a1, defined by mutation M26, that was found in Neolithic Treilles next to G2a (two out of 22 samples: tableau 8, Lacan 2011), or ‘stand-alone’ as far north as Yermenonville, in Dolmen de la Pierre Fritte, Eure-et-Loir (two out of two samples: tableau 13, Lacan 2011): though generally considered pre-Neolithic, this haplogroup seems to have shared the post-Neolithic demise of YDNA G2a in an almost identical way.
The Avellaner Cave paleogenetic results came out just a few month since Busby et al. shook the genealogic world by asserting most dating assumptions (on Y-chromosomes haplogroup R1b) where erroneously based on unlimited mutational linearity. Haplogroup G2a Y-chromosomes never enjoyed the same popularity among investigators as R1b to produce the same dating shock, still G2a subclades previously considered closely related also attested much older than thought. The gradual shift of facts and scientific opinion towards an older history of some of the world’s main YDNA markers implies an increased role for selective processes, much of which happened the last few thousand years. For the time being it would be wise to be wary of any self-proclaimed expertise on Y-chromosome SNP dating. Ill-fated migrationist fora and blogs on the internet often found themselves obliged either to reconsider their doctrines and corresponding records of intimidation, or to shut down altogether as eg. dna-forums indeed did. Now easy replacement models are increasingly falsified, the current wide spread of Y-DNA haplogroups may rather be held for a long history of intense hybridization. This urges for the need to reconsider rather long-term continuity models, and the remapping of migrational processes to include much earlier distribution events.
The pattern of post-Neolithic extinction revealed by haplogroups G2a and E1b must have been a shared phenomenon all over Europe. Sampling bias may have been an issue, since the discrepancy of Neolithic YDNA in current populations regarding the Neolithic samples of Treilles, Avellaner Cave, and Ötzi, ie. in the Grands Causses region of southern France, Catalonia and the central Alpine region respectively, were all retrieved in regions where the apparent decline of G2a wasn’t as catastrophic as elsewhere. Northern Neolithic populations west of the Carpathian Basin suffered a more unambiguous decline from Derenburg (Germany) to the fertile Loess plains as far as Belgium, where G2a chromosomes currently hit a modest regional maximum as low as 3.8% of the male population (Brabant project). However, the archeologic invisibility of Mesolithic cultures in the neighborhood is increasingly regarded an important and inpredictable issue. Ethnic competition and migration appears to have been decisive in great European post-Neolithic hybridization processes. Important FST shifts towards a much more northern genetic component can be recognized when current populations in Central Europe/Northern Italy are compared to Ötzi’s. Naturally, mesolithic intervention could also be inferred from the demise of the attested ‘Neolithic’ YDNA haplogroups, especially in the regions once inhabited by populations of the northern Neolithic pole. Instead, Balaresque thought to recognize Late-Neolithic diffusion of northern (LBK) cultures in the massive replacement of YDNA towards haplogroup R1b, as far south as the mediterranean.
Ötzi may serve here as an excellent reference to find out to what extend and how fast the human mixing processes have been at work during the last 5,000 years. Regional differences must have been a few orders of magnitude higher than nowadays, now the genome of Ötzi emerges as an outlier to all filter settings of the Principal Component analyses of Keller et al. (2012), even beyond the vicinity of Sardinian samples, European outliers all by themselves. If the European average of Neanderthal admixture in excess to an unknown African average is 3.5 percent, Ötzi would have around 5.5 percent (Hawks). Genetic shifts since Ötzi are thus that genetic components currently found in the modern populations of Ötzi’s Central European origin location feature an enormous shift into the direction of northern Europe. Indeed, as an alternative to senseless assertions towards the extinction “without issue” of Ötzi type genome components, genetic admixture and recombination has all appearance to have caused the current populations of central Europe and even SW Europe and much of southern Europe to have shifted towards an intermediate position between northern Europe and Ötzi. The impact of such shifts to our current poor understanding of migration patterns may be illustrated by the almost contemporary TRB remains of Gokhem, Sweden, that Skoglund et al. (2012) depicted in several graphs (fig. 1A, 1C, supplements S6, S8, S9) to nowadays cluster together with, or close to current North Italians.
The Neolithic farmer sample (‘Gok4’) was excavated from a megalithic burial structure in Gokhem parish, Sweden, and has been directly 14C-dated to 4,921 ± 50 calibrated years BP (calBP), similar to the age (5,100-4,900 calBP) of the majority of other finds in the area (15). There were no indications from the burial context suggesting that Gok4 was different from other TRB individuals, and strontium isotope analyses indicate that Gok4 was born less than 100 km from the megalithic structure, similar to all other analyzed TRB individuals from the area (Skoglund et al., 2012)
Indeed, current efforts to reconstruct past populations as combinations of present populations are falsified by the enormous genetic shifts revealed by Ötzi’s ancient genome. Skoglund’s three genomes of Scandinavian hunter gatherers show a similar, though much less pronounced shift to the north:
the three Neolithic hunter gatherers appeared largely outside the distribution of the modern sample, but in the vicinity of Finnish and northern European individuals (Fig. 1A). (Skoglund et al., 2012)
Even though Skoglund’s Scandinavian samples were neighbors, some are almost as different from each other as the most distant current European populations are nowadays. This was especially true for the Gokhem TRB sample, whose aDNA suggests a contemporary geographic origin in between the Alpine realm of Ötzi and Scandinavia. Currently, central and southern European populations are attested ‘intermediate’ between Ötzi and Skoglund’s Scandinavian hunter-gatherer samples, so based on current samples a purported central or even south European origin of the Gokhem TRB sample is bound to be deceiving. Thanks to Ötzi, this paradox may be interpreted as indicative to prehistoric diversity and the increased integration of European populations in more recent times. Assuming geographic population differences were indeed more pronounced 5,000 years ago, simple interpolation between Alpine Ötzi and Scandinavian hunter-gatherer samples would probably locate the origin of the TRB Gokham sample somewhere on the North European Plain. As expected, for this being also the archeological homeland of TRB. Even the ‘Neolithic’ mtDNA H of the TRB sample of Gokham, though ‘intrusive’ in Scandinavia, doesn’t attest a non-European origin based on this autosomal result! Instead, the mtDNA H attested for this Gokham sample may rather refine its origin further to the Atlantic side of continental TRB territory.
Is this the end of all hopes for a genetic confirmation of an overwhelming Neolithic ‘wave of advance’, that should have rushed through Europe as a wave front along a SE-NW axis? The full impact of the apparent global attenuation of prehistoric physical differences is beyond the scope of this article. However, a slight eastern tilt towards SE Europe of the Gokham sample as compared to Ötzi and native Scandinavian samples, indeed noted by Skoglund (2012), can also be recognized in the current populations of Northern and SW Europe. Even though Skoglund failed to pursue this trail further east as far as Turkey (that currently appears quite isolated from Europe on his graph), this eastern tilt, albeit weak and less certain of Neolithic origin, can’t be denied. However, comparing the shifts of modern European populations with ancient European samples and available data from the Near East, this eastern tilt hardly emerges as excessive, but rather fits within the framework of post-Neolithic long-range genetic integration. We are badly in need of paleogenetic samples from the Near East to appriciate the historic impact of west-east integration, and only inmutable eastern samples would be a valid indication of current speculations. Eastern paleogenetic samples shifted away from the European side would potentially quantify the influence of a western component in current eastern populations instead. Equally interesting would be a considerable shift of older samples in the Near East to the European side, though, for discovering a possible shared origin of certain modern anatomical changes from a source external both to Europe and the Near East. As for now, if anything, the overall genetic shift to be perceived in Europe appears to be dominated by the northern component.
More plausible than any Neolithic overkill of new “immigrant” eastern genes may have been a new way of life, sowing the seeds for the success of ‘other’ genes, whatever their history or where they came from. YDNA genes marked by the known R1 haplogroups may have been among them, in this view thus being subject to selective processes that should not be mistaken for a true pattern of Neolithic advance.
Our interpretation of the history of hg R1b1b2 now makes Europe a prime example of how expansion of a Y-chromosomal lineage tends to accompany technological and cultural change. (Balaresque et al., 2010)
The view of an uninterrupted Neolithic advance sweeping away all traces of previous populations hardly find support among archeologists anymore, and haplogroup R1 Y-chromosomes, including the poor interpretation of their clear West-East dichotomy, for R1b (M412) as much as R1a (Z93/Z283), remain too much of a mystery for any migrational conclusion. So far parsimony suggests an initially thin dispersal of Hg R over a wider area and a subsequent period of growth.
[…] more complex pre-Neolithic scenarios remain possible for the L23(xM412) components in Southeast Europe and elsewhere. (Myres et al. – 2010)
None has been found yet in danubian contexts, so any Neolithic involvement in the spread of ‘occidental’ R1b should be sought somewhere else: a new element caught halfway the wave of expanding Neolithic culture, or maybe another group of Neolithic migrant that remain unidentified. Ancient DNA analyses of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany, resulted in the oldest testimony of R1b Y-chromosomes. Also contemporaneous R1a showed up in the neighborhood (Eulau), what may be an indication of the importance of late-Neolithic unifying processes invoked by mesolithizing populations in the area.
Defining the genetic variation of human populations during the Late Neolithic (2,800–2,000 cal BC) is of particular interest, as this period is characterized by dramatic changes within the prehistoric cultural and social landscape of central Europe from a highly varied one to one dominated by two distinct, coexisting, agricultural groups—the Bell Beaker (Glockenbecher) and Corded Ware (Schnurkeramik) cultures (Lee et al., 2012)
If migrational at all, R1 may have spread initially in Paleolithic or Mesolithic rather than Neolithic events. I guess the most likely scenario that also involve the Neolithic should be congruent to the regression of ‘danubian’ Neolithic regions to ‘mesolithised’ Chasséen/Michelsberg cultures at the western frontiers of Neolithic LBK. The ultimate result being any distinct Neolithic ethnic component to be washed out by what could now tentatively be perceived as a distinct northern Mesolithic ethnicity.
Unfortunately, this issue of European descend and continuity appears haunted by political assertions and ideology. Those hammering on the Mesolithic hegemony of mtDNA U haplotypes, allegedly not representative to modern Europe, appear unwilling to consider the ethnic status of the Mesolithic samples. Even Mallory’s straw man of a Mesolithic broader homeland for Indo European languages implicily attributed a distinguished Mesolithic ethnicity to the plains of Northern and Eastern Europe. This concept leaves the pre-Neolithic ethnical status of the Atlantic rim, the Balkan, the Alps and the Mediterranean and possibly even Scandinavia and the Baltic area, unresolved. However, Mallory’s perception of such an enormous Mesolithic homeland is a sham, being exclusively designed to be shattered in favor of Kurganist views on violent macho horsemen from the east. Received as a ‘better’ alternative than older Eurocentrist views, already heavily abused by Nazi ideology, mainstream thought could finally move away from archeological evidence and content itself with a non-occidental Indo European origin skeleton, even though destined to remain without flesh for decades. Mesolithic Europe is still largely invisible to modern archeology and largely contemporaneous to early Neolithic societies. The shear size of such a broader Mesolithic homeland, that Mallory posited between the Volga and Rhine, apparently presented an argument sufficient to burn the straw man to ashes, but actually the main objection against a broader Mesolithic homeland was it didn’t supply a better migrational mechanism to expand to the southern ancient Indo European territories than his kurgan alternative did. At least the kurgan cultures of the east could already be attributed an origin delimited by comprehensive boundaries like those of the Sredny Stog culture in the Volga area. Strange enough Mallory took care to remain vague about the western limits of this Mesolithic empire, at least ancestral to TRB and Corded Ware cultures, and refused to decently consider an early ‘Atlantic’ penetration of Indo European languages, purportedly linked with the development of Western European (and mediterranean!) Bell Beaker cultures. Still, Dutch representatives of this culture were by then already linked with the Corded Ware complex by Lanting (1976), and this link has been confirmed for the earliest Iberian finds (Rojo-Guerra, 2006). Only now paleogenetic results are able to reveal Mesolithic penetration of an ethnic element well outside the hypothetised broader northern homelands:
[…] two exceptionally well-preserved 7,000-year-old Mesolithic individuals from La Braña-Arintero site in León (Northwestern Spain) revealed the time span and also the vast geographic area involved, could be enlarged now with these two new haplotypes from the Iberian Peninsula.
The mitochondria of both individuals are assigned to U5b2c1, a haplotype common among the small number of other previously studied Mesolithic individuals from Northern and Central Europe. This suggests a remarkable genetic uniformity and little phylogeographic structure over a large geographic area of the pre-Neolithic populations. (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2012)
This ‘remarkable genetic uniformity’ has all appearance to have a northern origin:
[…] analyses of 1.34% and 0.53% of their nuclear genomes, containing about 50,000 and 20,000 ancestry informative SNPs, respectively, show that these two Mesolithic individuals are not related to current populations from either the Iberian Peninsula or Southern Europe.
when compared exclusively to European populations, La Braña 1 and 2 fall closer to Northern European populations such as CEU and Great Britons than Southern European groups such as Iberians or Tuscans (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2012)
For sure, even Mallory should have considered Mesolithic expansion a viable, even essential condition for the Mesolithic hypothesis. Somehow the Mesolithic world of Europe emerges as a unity in the periphery of Central European Neolithic culture, and the current data suggests early agriculturalists harbored hunter-gatherer U-lineages (Lee et al., 2012). Now expansion of a distinctive northern Mesolithic culture can indeed be linked with mtDNA U5 haplogroups, the exclusive eastern origin of Indo European languages may even be questioned within the Mesolithic hypothesis:
Previous studies of ancient mtDNA have shown that U5 haplotypes were common among Mesolithic Europeans, especially in Central and Eastern parts of Europe. For instance, a high incidence of U5 haplotypes (about 65%) has been detected in hunter-gatherer individuals from various sites across central and Eastern Europe. U5b haplotypes have also been reportedly recovered from Mesolithic skeletons found in Aizpea in Navarra, Spain (dated to about 6,600 years before present) and Reuland-Loschbour in Luxembourg (dated to about 6,000 years BC), as well as from the skeleton known as “Cheddar Man” that was found in Gough’s Cave, England (Sánchez-Quinto et al., 2012)
The transition to Indo-European culture is nowadays often related to some profound post-Neolithic genetic changes. In Özi any idealized ‘Indo-European’ or ‘northern’ element remains elusive, not in the least because of his short stature, lack of dolichocephaly, his dark eyes and G2a Y-chromosomes, none of which were particularly associated with the modern myth of Indo European ‘riders’. Northern admixture in Southern and Central Europe appears to have taken effect only in the Bronze Age since these didn’t affect the genome of Ötzi at all, even though he already had a bronze axe in the Late Neolithic. Wear patterns suggested the axe was basically used for cutting wood. Mesolithic populations similar to La Braña may have coexisted all over Europe together with more conservative local Ötzi-like populations in a patchy distribution, what may offer an explanation why Ötzi – compared to all current European populations – didn’t show a northern shift in his genome ‘yet’. His genome was extremely ‘southern’, while some of his neighbors were probably not. Indeed, Ötzi’s bronze axe was a valuable commodity of Remedello manufacture, and fixed on the shaft with mesolithic technology. If any population expansion could be deduced on the popularity of a hafted tool, then Ötzi must have been just on the receiving end. Mesolithising tendencies had their effect over a wider region and were represented by a chain of neighboring late-Neolithic cultures, often associated with the local introduction of megalith monuments – unknown in the danubian Neolithic of western Europe (Mordant, 2000) – and other peculiarities like graves for dogs and hafted tools.
in the Middle Neolithic Chasséen and Michelsberg, as woodworking increases and diversifies, a real variety of hafted instruments appears (Legrand & Sidéra – 2007)
Chasséen influence can’t be denied to have penetrated deep into Cardial territory, including the Catalonian group of megalithism. The Grands Caussus region, where the Treilles culture flourished, was probably less affected due to isolation by dense forests. Traditionally seen as an extension of the Neolithic advance and loosely associated with earlier LBK influences spilling across the Rhine into the Paris Basin, it is nowadays often considered more appropriate to interpret Chasséen culture as a rather mesolithised culture that owe much of its characteristics to the acceptance of, or reversal to, or continuation of an ‘extended broad spectrum economy’ and the corresponding survival techniques of an older Mesolithic population.
Though of a later age, Ötzi’s copper axe derived from this same tradition. It was hafted and indeed, the shape suggested an origin in the Remedello culture of the Po plain, whose first phase dates 3400-2800 calBC. This culture was mentioned by Mallory as one of the three major Eneolithic/Early Bronze Age cultures of Italy that could be explained by intrusions, the two others being Rinaldone and Gaudo:
It has long been argued that these three cultures were the result of an invasion(s) of a warrior aristocracy which introduced metallurgy, a new burial rite, and new ceramics, as well as marked change in the earlier social system.
[…] Rinaldone graves offer typically Indo-European evidence such as horse remains and an abundance of copper objects including daggers, axes, awls and a halberd. To the north, in the Po Valley, was the Remedello culture with its large cementery where metal daggers, halberds, axes and awls accompanied burials. (Mallory, 1989)
Mallory could perceive some very long-distance parallels in these cultures, even Indian. While this should rather confirm the international nature of Europe’s ongoing mesolithisation processes, his real intention rather appears to look away from western Europe – ‘almost’ in the vein of Churchill’s proclamation that “History is written by the victors”, and dismissive of Continental views:
Research by British and American scholars on the transition of farming in Central Europe has resulted in a number of models which have been viewed with continuous scepticism in Central Europe. Contrary to the often generalised Anglo-American approaches, particularistic traditions, based methodologically and theoretically on culture history and environmental archeology, have continued, notably in the German-speaking countries but also in France. These have been substantiated by an ever increasing body of meticulously collected detailed data. (Gronenborn, 2007)
On a side note, Gronenborn’s quoting of Dutch research – bridging Bell Beaker and Corded ware and sustaining their shared background in Swifterbant culture – may suggest German archeology still depreciates the distinction between Germany and the Low Countries as much as the Anglo-American world. Now, French researchers perceive plenty of transalpine influences for all stages of peri- and cis-Alpine archeological horizons. Lagozza culture (Northern Italy, 3100-2200 cal.BC) and Cortaillod culture (Swiss, 3600-2600 cal.BC) are subgroups of Chasséen culture, and Remedello culture was another expression of transalpine contacts:
Engraved figures on a limestone rock wall have recently been identified in the French Alpine foothills (Chastel-Arnaud, Drôme, France).
Concerning the daggers, first comparisons recall the Remedello cuture, in North Italy, traces of which are exceptional in the French Alps.
Through this debate, the authors’ wish has been to consider the engraved rocks of Les Auberts as part of a profound dynamism established in time, which is for us a better theory than the hypothesis of copper prospectors arriving from Italy. (Morin et al. – 2005)
Migrational replacement scenarios experience a hard time ever since archaic hominin admixtures were detected on a regional level in modern humans. Our view of evolutionary forces acting on our genome has now utterly changed. The focus has shifted to admixture due to recurrent range expansions, followed by internal genetic processes:
[…] large levels of introgression expected after a range expansion with interbreeding argue against a complete replacement of the European Palaeolithic people by Neolithic populations expanding from the Middle East
Once population densities increase in the range core, selection can become stronger than drift: purifying and background selection can progressively operate. (Alves et al., 2012)
Likewise, Chandler’s 2005 article, covering Mesolithic as well as Neolithic populations, revealed the Neolithic genes as regional rather than immigrant. Only nowadays, with popular replacement scenarios failing ever more dramatically, even stale mainstream brainlocks are opening up to different scenarios:
One integrationist scenario is therefore migration by agriculturalists, but agriculturalists who carried largely “Mesolithic” genes from elsewhere in Europe.
DNA from the two populations differs, although neither carry the Near Eastern lineage implicated in carrying agriculture into Europe (Chandler, Sykes, and Zilhao 2005). This is consistent with Cardial immigration involving farmers of indigenous Mesolithic ancestry (cf. the “integrationist” model suggested above). Rowley-Conwy – 2011
Not all celebrated genetists share the renewed appreciation of Europe’s deep genetic testimony. Svante Paabo, whose technical skills are still wanted at all kinds of genetic investigation, already proved intellectually unable to recognize continuity before in his undue evaluation of genetic material DNA from Neanderthal remains. His extinction doctrines were abundantly quoted in the media until recently, but now his battle turned against their Mesolithic descendents. Even this year his party (Fu et al.) tried to resucitate Mesolithic extinction scenarios in favor of Neolithic expansion, typically focussing on the genetic structure of an isolated Baltic Mesolithic against the ‘Neolithic’ rest of Europe that also has mtDNA H in their mix. They sought to deny paleogenetic results that revealed mtDNA H as Mesolithic and wrongfully asserted a ‘complete absence in pre-Neolithic huntergatherers’, though one quote is interesting for those appreciating the period of post-Neolithic, Mesolithic resilience:
[…] H-type mtDNAs experienced a recent population expansion while U-type mtDNAs experienced a much older population expansion. (Fu et al. – 2012)
Meanwhile, more mitochondrial DNA groupings are getting detached from an exclusive Neolithic association:
[…] a substantial, perhaps predominant, signal from mitochondrial haplogroups J and T, previously thought to have spread primarily from the Near East into Europe with the Neolithic population, may in fact reflect dispersals during the Late Glacial period, ~19–12 thousand years (ka) ago. (Pala et al., 2012)
The same could be said of mtDNA K, also carried by Otzi:
haplogroups K and T have been observed in LBK groups across central Europe, Neolithic hunter-gatherers in Scandinavia, and at Granollers, Spain (c. 3,500 – 3,000 BC) […], suggesting that these maternal lineages were widespread and common across the European continent in the past and present (Lee et al., 2012)
Regarding YDNA, haplogroup E-V13 Y-chromosomes are now sufficiently substantiated by paleogenetic samples and the archeological record to discourage further speculation on fresh arrivals, as has been fashionable until very recently due to ridiculous low haplogroup dating. The Avellaner Cave haplogroup E-V13 Y-chromosome sample, having an archeological age of 7,000 year ago, completely shattered all previous designs that departed from much more recent dates. Cruciani, et al. (2007) were still serious about an ‘estimated coalescence age of about 4.5 ky for haplogroups E-V13 and J-M12 in Europe’ what would thus ‘exclude a demographic expansion associated with the introduction of agriculture from Anatolia and would place this event at the beginning of the Balkan Bronze Age, a period that saw strong demographic changes as clearly testified from archeological records.’
Instead, having a much more ancient date now attested by paleogenetic samples, E-V13 rather appears to have been washed away by those same post-Neolithic events. Since both E-V13 and J2b (J-M12) are nowadays predominantly found in the Balkans, the prospect of any important post-Neolithic Balkanic expansion is getting very precarious, however painful for those consistently bent on linking Y-chromosome evidence to historic Greek events. This view was definitely finished off by genetic results in Afghanistan:
The E1b1b1-M35 lineages in some Pakistani Pashtun were previously traced to a Greek origin brought by Alexander’s invasions. However, RM network of E1b1b1-M35 found that Afghanistan’s lineages are correlated with Middle Easterners and Iranians but not with populations from the Balkans. (Haber et al. – 2012)
However, all this doesn’t imply that E-V13 can now safely considered Neolithic. Nor Hg J2b for that matter, that at least in India was rather associated with pre-Neolithic culture:
HG J2b2-M241–related microsatellite variance is higher in Uttar Pradesh near the border of Nepal. It should be noted that numerous Mesolithic sites have been observed in this region (Sengupta et al. – 2006)
The attested severe underestimation of age for E-V13 may be just the tip of the iceberg: much older events are involved:
The subdivision of E-M78 in the six common major clades revealed a pronounced geographic structuring […]: Haplogroup E-V65 and the paragroups E-M78* and E-V12* were observed mainly in northern Africa, haplogroup E-V13 was found at high frequencies in Europe, and haplogroup E-V32 was observed at high frequencies only in eastern Africa. The only haplogroup showing a wide geographic distribution was E-V22, relatively common not only in northeastern and eastern Africa but also found in Europe and western Asia, up to southern Asia
Northeastern Africa thus seems to be the place from where E-M78 chromosomes started to disperse to other African regions and outside Africa. (Cruciani et al. – 2007)
Indeed, genetic and linguistic evidence of Sub-Saharan influences abound in Europe, and the ‘temporality’ of these influences shouldn’t be an issue:
[…] it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. (Brace et al. – 2005)
Neolithic sub-Saharan influence, one likely ultimate source for European haplogroup E YDNA, may have reached much further:
If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. (Brace et al. – 2005)
However, one might question whether this Sub-Saharan expansion didn’t have its roots in much earlier Upper Paleolithic events, as corraborated by the geographic subdivision of E-M78 that apparently was already in place much earlier than previously thought. The first indication of Sub-Saharan influences in the Mediterranean already appear in the Mid Upper Paleolithic ‘double burial’ of the Grotta dei Fanciulli (‘Grimaldi Cave’, Balzi Rossi (the Red Cliff) near Ventimiglia in Italy): ‘where dates are available these cluster between ~25,000 and 22,000 BP’ (Pettitt, 2010). Their purported ‘negroid’ physiology should be an interesting indication of increased cultural contacts already long before the onset of the Neolithic, and may even set a new upper limit to the regional presence of African populations, whose possible long-distance and early northeastern African origin may also be corroborated by the current geographic differentiation of E-M78 Y-chromosomes. Even paleolithic genetic homogeneity has all the appearance of a myth. Strange enough, the cultural impact of these pre-Neolithic arrivals can’t be clearly distinguished from native ‘Cro-Magnon’ practices already in place:
An adult male seems to have been buried in the Grotta dei Fanciulli, although no report of a grave cutting exists […]. This was found stratigraphically higher than the famous double burial. This contains an adolescent, probably male, and a female adult, who seem to have been places in the grave sequentially. The excavators noticed that the original grave had contained the adolescent laid carefully on his side, but that the distribution of perforated marine shells that formed part of the decoration of his head gear dispersed around the surrounding soil indicated that the grave had been subsequently opened and the female’s body placed within. The grave cutting seems to have been enlarged to provide for this addition, and the apparently forced position of the woman in head down and highly contracted supports this notion (Pettitt, 2010)
Thus, this example of African admixture definitely happened in the European context of cultural continuity. Moreover, not only did the grave fit within local Cro-Magnon customs, they fit within the Neanderthal traditions as well: rectangular grave cuttings are already known from Neanderthal contexts as early as 40-60 kya (La Chapelle) and possibly earlier, not unlike Africa where the practice was firmly established in the formal inhumation of infants by ~76,000 BP. Now the most vociferous opponents of Neanderthal continuity became obsolete, I am sure science will remember the many good scientists whose voices so far weren’t listened to as well as it should have been. Bad scientist will ultimately arrive to the conclusion that ‘we’ already knew all along, because fortunately good anthropologists and archeologists have always been amidst us, however scorned for the ‘gradual changes’ they had already noted long ago in European physiology since Cro-Magnon. These changes may now be safely attributed to long-term contact and evolution rather than progressive replacement:
[…] the constituency that I represent – thoroughly Darwinian in its outlook, is quite happy in seeing a European “classic” Neanderthal become transformed by gradual means into a modern European but yet has trouble seeing how the transformation of an African craniofacial pattern into a European one could take place within the same period of time. (Brace, 1996)
Ötzi’s tale about recent evolution, continuity and migration is a deduction of scientific results on his remains that cover archeology, genetics and pathology, though one more feature may be decisive in the evaluation of Neolithic change, that made modern Europeans so different from their pre-Neolithic ancestors. Among Ötzi’s fragile remains his moderately short, ‘mesocephalic’ skull is both a testimony of European (post) Neolithic transformation to modernity and another example of recent, albeit global, evolution. More to come!
- Aliev et al. – Modern carriers of haplogroup E1b1b1c1 (M34) are the descendants of the ancient Levantines, 2010, link
- Balaresque et al. – A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages, 2010, link
- Barfield – LITHICS, CULTURE AND ETHNIC IDENTITY, 2005, link
- Barnett – Gender, Social Roles, and Mental and Physical Health, 2002, link
- Behar et al. – A Copernican Reassessment of the Human Mitochondrial DNA Tree from its Root, 2012, link
- Bentley et al.- Community differentiation and kinship among Europe’s first farmer, 2012, link
- Bernhard – Anthropological Studies on the Mummy from the Ötztal Alps, 1994, link
- Brace – Cro-Magnon and Qafzeh — vive la Difference, 1996, link
- Brace et al. – The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, 2005, link
- Charchar et al. – Inheritance of coronary artery disease in men: an analysis of the role of the Y chromosome, 2012, link
- Cruciani et al. – Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa, 2004, link
- Cruciani et al. – Tracing past human male movements in northern/eastern Africa and western Eurasia: new clues from Y-chromosomal haplogroups E-M78 and J-M12, 2007, link
- de Neys – Bias and Conflict: A Case for Logical Intuitions, 2012, <a href="http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/1/28.abstract, or try here, link Press: Intuition and Reasoning Influence Decision-Making By Rick Nauert, link
- Dulik et al. – Mitochondrial DNA and Y Chromosome Variation Provides Evidence for a Recent Common Ancestry between Native Americans and Indigenous Altaians, 2012, link
- Enattah et al. – Evidence of Still-Ongoing Convergence Evolution of the Lactase Persistence T-13910 Alleles in Humans, 2007, link
- Friedman, Ray H. Rosenman – Type A behavior and your heart, 1974, link
- Fried et al. – Gastrointestinal Pathology in Children With Lyme Disease, 1996, link
- Fu et al. – Complete Mitochondrial Genomes Reveal Neolithic Expansion into Europe, 2012, link
- Gronenborn – A Variation on a Basic Theme: The Transition to Farming in Southern Central Europe, 1999, link
- Gronenborn – Beyond the models: ‘Neolithisation’ in Central Europe, 2007, link
- Grugni et al. – Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians, 2012, link
- Hawks – Neandertal ancestry “Iced”, 2012-08-15, link
- Haak et al. – Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age, 2008, link
- Haak et al. – Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities, 2010, link
- Haber et al. – Afghanistan’s Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events, 2012, link
- Henn et al. – Cryptic Distant Relatives Are Common in Both Isolated and Cosmopolitan Genetic Samples, 2012, link
- Hervella et al. – Ancient DNA from Hunter-Gatherer and Farmer Groups from Northern Spain Supports a Random Dispersion Model for the Neolithic Expansion into Europe, 2012, link
- Hooton – Up from the Ape (New York, 1947, revised edition), link
- Hughes et al – Strict evolutionary conservation followed rapid gene loss on human and rhesus Y chromosomes, 2012, link
- ISOGG (International Society of Genetic Genealogy) – Y-DNA Haplogroup Tree 2012, link
- Janko et al. – Preservation of 5300 year old red blood cells in the Iceman, 2012, link
- Hughes et al. – Strict evolutionary conservation followed rapid gene loss on human and rhesus Y chromosome, 2012, link
- Keller et al. – New insights into the Tyrolean Iceman’s origin and phenotype as inferred by whole-genome sequencing, 2011, link
- Lacan et al. – Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route, 2011a, link, supplement
- Lacan et al. – Ancient DNA suggests the leading role played by men in the Neolithic dissemination, 2011b, link, supplement
- Lacan – La Néolithisation du bassin méditerranéen : Apports de l’ADN ancien, 2011, link
- Lalueza-Fox et al. – Genetic analysis of the presumptive blood from Louis XVI, King of France, 2011, link
- Lee et al. – Emerging genetic patterns of the european neolithic: Perspectives from a late neolithic bell beaker burial site in Germany, 2012, link
- Legrand and Sidéra – Methods, Means, and Results when Studying European Bone Industries, 2007, link
- Lichardus et al. – La protohistoire de l’Europe, 1987
- Lawler – Civilization’s Double-Edged Sword, 2012, link
- Lugliè et al. – Early Neolithic obsidians in Sardinia (Western Mediterranean): the Su Carroppu case, 2007, link
- MacArthur et al. – A Systematic Survey of Loss-of-Function Variants in Human Protein-Coding Genes, 2012, link
- Mallory – In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archeology and Myth, ISBN 0-500-27616-1, 1989
- Morin et al – Étude préliminaire sur des poignards gravés de type Remedello découverts dans les Préalpes du Sud (Chastel-Arnaud, Drôme, France) et réflexions sur leur insertion dans le Néolithique final régional, 2005, link
- Murray – Napoleon – Of What Did He Die?, 1971, link
- Regueiro et al. – High levels of Paleolithic Y-chromosome lineages characterize Serbia, 2012, link
- Renfrew et al. – The oldest maritime sanctuary? Dating the sanctuary at Keros and the Cycladic Early Bronze Age, 2012, link
- Retief & Wessels – Did Adolf Hitler have syphilis? 2005, link
- Roberts & Vander Linden – Investigating Archaeological Cultures, 2011, link
- Rootsi et al, – Distinguishing the co-ancestries of haplogroup G Y-chromosomes in the populations of Europe and the Caucasus, 2012, link
- Rovira i Port – CONSIDERACIONES SOBRE UN NUEVO Y NOTABLE PUÑAL CALCOLÍTICO ATRIBUIBLE AL GRUPO TREILLES DEL MUSEU D´ARQUEOLOGÍA DE CATALUNYA EN BARCELONA, 2004, link
- Rowley-Conwy – Westward Ho! The Spread of Agriculture from Central Europe to the Atlantic, 2011, link
- Sampietro et al. – Palaeogenetic evidence supports a dual model of Neolithic spreading into Europe, 2007, link
- Sengupta et al. – Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists, 2006, link
- Scudellari – Long Live the Y, by Megan Scudellari, The Scientist, February 22, 2012, link
- Shoaib Shah et al. – Y haplogroups and aggressive behavior in a Pakistani ethnic group, 2008, link
- Skoglund et al. – Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe, 2012, link
- Tartaron – Great Riddles in Archaeology Lecture Series: Ötzi the Iceman, Penn Museum february 1, 2012, presented by Dr. Thomas Tartaron, link
- Pala et al. – Mitochondrial DNA Signals of Late Glacial Recolonization of Europe from Near Eastern Refugia, 2012, link
- Pettitt – The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial, 2010, link
- Plantinga et al. – Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Neolithic South-West Europe, 2012, link
- Quintana-Murci – Gene Losses in the Human Genome, 2012, link
- Vanmontfort – The Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in a frontier zone, 2007, link
- Vanmontfort – Forager–farmer connections in an ‘unoccupied’ land: First contact on the western edge of LBK territory, 2008, link
- Vanmontfort – A southern view on north-south interaction during the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the Lower Rhine Area – Between Foraging and Farming chapter 8, edited by Fokkens, 2008, link
- Vanek et al. – Kinship and Y-Chromosome Analysis of 7th Century Human Remains: Novel DNA Extraction and Typing Procedure for Ancient Material, 2009, link
- Verna et al. – The Early Aurignacian human remains from La Quina-Aval (France), 2012, link
- Wilford – N.Y. Times April 25, 1999: Discovery Suggests Humans Are a Bit Neanderthal By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD, link
- Wolpoff et al. – Why not the Neandertals? 2004, link
- Wrzesniewski et al. – Gender and Age Differences in Coronary-Prone Behavior: A Cross-cultural Study, 2002, link
- Xiaohong Wu et al. – Early Pottery at 20,000 Years Ago in Xianrendong Cave, China, 2012, link
- Yoichi Chida and Andrew Steptoe – The Association of Anger and Hostility With Future Coronary Heart Disease: A Meta-Analytic Review of Prospective Evidence, 2009, link
- Anger And Hostility Harmful To The Heart, Especially Among Men – ScienceDaily (Mar. 9, 2009), link