Saltar para: Post [1], Comentários [2], Pesquisa e Arquivos [3]



Just one of those no shit moments of, I said it first! :

 

 Just over 6 thousand years ago, in Caucasus region of western Azerbaijan near de border of Georgia, not far from tiblisi, 3 young children, were buried in the Mentesh Tepe, in Pits, in the shulaveri-shomu culture, sideways in a contracted position, (I figure this after reading paper ....Lyonnet_etal2015QI.pdf).

* Lyonnet  et al - Mentesh Tepe, an early settlement of the Shomu-Shulaveri Culture in Azerbaijan

 

 

  B . Just over 5 thousand years ago, In Iberia region of south Portugal, near the border of Spain, no far from Lisbon, 3 young Children were buried in Perdigoes site, in Pits, in the pre culture milieu of the bell beakers culture, sideways in a contracted position (I figure this after reading paper A. silva et al)

  

A silva et al -Late Neolithic Pit Burials from perdigões enclosure (Portugal): Preliminary results...

 

 now... 

Of the latter 3 children in Portugal, found in Pit7, one was Mtdna H , meaning is mom was most likely a local girl  since those Haplogroup H girls had been in Iberia for very long time, but… wait for it, wait for it… the second and third DNA were Mtdna U4 and U5. - U4 and U5 are from the southern Russia (Siberia) where actually and funny enough the oldest mutations of R1b (M343) originate something like 16,000 Years ago. We know that, for instance, in Scandinavia where its found in highest percentage in Europe they only show up much later with R1b of bell beaker… see, see. What the hell where they doing in the most southern western part of Europe so early? – They came with the leftovers of the Shulaveri Shomu R1b (M269). Bet you all if and when they figure these boys Y-Dna haplogroup it will be all if not most… R1b!

 

And also I bet you all that, when (I think Lyonnet sent samples for France for analysis) those 3 children from Mentesh Tepe Dna analysis comes out we will find the same HP U4 and U5… and if any Chr Y-dna comes out it will be R1b, all of them. 

 

No shit sherlock!

 

 Nota:Não quero de todo transformar isto num blog de antropologia, que nem é a minha praia pese embora o gosto, mas quero que fique escrito, para a posteriedade.  Quem não se interessar por estes temas ignore e siga em frente, ignorando estes posts. Ainda vou colocar mais uns 2 ou 3 antes de largar o tema. Aliás escrevi em Inglês porque estou a ter hits vindo de fora…. E para que fique escrito e claro o que é cintilante e obvio para mim.

 

 

 

Autoria e outros dados (tags, etc)


12 comentários

Sem imagem de perfil

De Maju a 12.01.2016 às 12:31

U4 and U5 are NOT "steppe lineages", they are actually both found in Epipaleolithic Portugal (Chandler 2005) and maybe also in Taforalt (→ http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/ancient-mtdna-maps-of-europe.html). U5 is widespread in all Paleolithic Europe, while U4 is more rare but still found at the Baltic and in Portugal.

The crouched position, not to mention the pits (i.e. holes in the ground, the most basic and common type of burial ever), are mainstrean in Neolithic Europe (but crouched burials are also found in Magdalenian and Epi-Magdalenian contexts). So the only thing in common seems to be that three children were buried in both sites.

Now, please, tell me: is there any other connection such as similar concept for the site (Perdigoes' characteristic curved zig-zag ditch, dolmen burials to the NE)? I'm betting that nope, else you'd mention them. So beyond the, admittedly curious, coincidence that of having three children buried, what other connection there is? None.

Notice please that Georgia is not dominated in any way by Y-DNA R1b (G instead) and that rumors about this haplogroup originating in the Caucasus are unfounded, based only on shallow looks at Armenian raw diversity, but Armenians have many different terminal branches of R1b, some Asian, others European, much as Brazilians have more Y-DNA diversity than Portuguese just because they have very diverse origins, but concluding that Portuguese originated in Brazil out of that would be wrong and a careful look at detailed phylogeny would also show that error. R1b surely originated in West Asia, somewhere between Turkey and Jordan most likely, but this is too deep in time. That original West Asian R1b produced a number of sub-branches of which we are only interested in R1b-S116/P312. This one seems to me originated in South France (see: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2016/01/basque-r1b-df27.html).
Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 12.01.2016 às 15:23

Maju, thank you so much for dropping by!

Now… Really? Man, you need to come by Lisbon asap because we need to talk over lunch. 

Let me break it down as I see it, bit by bit.
First,
Ok, u5 is older and we don’t know the sub clade to see if it’s linked to the one moving around with U4… but U4 is different! :

a. U4 is actually only, only, found today in significant amounts (18%) to Chuvash and Bashkirs, which relate to Volga Bolgar's Sabir tribe and amazingly is that few hundreds miles small round blur pocket and complete off context pocket of R1b outside Europe, just south of the Urals east of Moscow, north of Kazakhstan,… and you think there is no relation?! … so - outside Europe the only geographic statistic significant pocket of maternal mtdna U4 is exactly in the same spot of the original old clade r1b (M343) and they show up together so early in the peninsula and you think there is no relation? Come on Maju!

b. Why is it so “early”? – because We know from, for instance malmstron et al (http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(09)01694-7) , that BALTIC and Scandinavian HAD none mtdna U4 or U5 by 5000 years before present… but, hey they got it buck loads by now and brought to them by Bell beaker from Lisbon! (I know I am being mean). And hey, that same U4 is showing up in Alentejo well over 5000 year ago like I showed …and we all know for a while that… “During the NEOLITHIC PERIOD U4 STANDS OUT BY ITS ABSENCE FROM THE HUNDREDS OF SAMPLES tested to date, except for one Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic sample (c. 3250 BCE) from CATALONIA and one from PORTUGAL (3000 BCE). Along with Cantabria, Catalonia and Portugal also happen to be the regions of Iberia where U4 is the most common today” – No shit why do you think that is!

c. So, Luis… I stand that there is a strong case for the geographical milieu of U4 (and U5) in the Caucasus and north to the ukraine/russia steppes and that the upsurge of Mtdna U4 (if not U5 because we don’t know the subclade) in Iberia peninsula by 5,000 years is indicative of, like r1b, a fast moving to cluster and aggregate and reunite in iberia by a little later of 6000 year ago. If not U5 then at leat Mtdna U4 came with R1b to South spain and Portugal.



Now I will move to your point 2… ;-) ok?
Sem imagem de perfil

De Maju a 12.01.2016 às 17:46

U4 is found at low frequencies through all Europe (→ http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_U4_mtDNA.shtml) and Portugal is relatively high within the Iberian Peninsula. Not just that, we know it existed at those or higher frequencies in the Epipaleolithic... and now we know it was also present in the Neolithic. U4 was also found in the Chalcolithic (Afonso 2010) and is found today. Always at low frequencies but always present. From what you say you seem to be conscious of this continuity, so why do you lean to an opposite conclusion then? Epipaleolithic → Neolithic → Chalcolithic → present, all them with low but detectable frequencies of U4, suggesting continuity. My impression is that there's an U4 branch specific of Portugal or West Iberia that is probably Paleolithic but that it has not been properly researched. It's too old not to have some distinctive markers.

"BALTIC and Scandinavian HAD none mtdna U4 or U5 by 5000 years before present"

· Stora Forvar (Sweden): 1/2 (Skoglund 2013)
· Bad Dürrenberg (North Germany): 1/1 (Bramanti 2009)
· Kunda culture (Lithuania): 1/2 (Bramanti 2009)
· YOO (Karelia): 2/7 (Der Sarkissian 2011/13)
· Popova (North Russia): 2/2 (Der Sarkissian 2011/13)

All them are from well before 5000 years ago. You probably have the Gotland Pitted Ware in mind but these are all several millennia older, from times when Neolithic in Europe was just arriving to the Aegean or not even that yet.

So U4 was very dense over there but it was also present in Portugal and quite possibly NW Africa (Taforalt): the expansion of U4 is at least Epipaleolithic, maybe late UP, just as the one of U5 with which it shows a strong correlation.

"During the NEOLITHIC PERIOD U4 STANDS OUT BY ITS ABSENCE FROM THE HUNDREDS OF SAMPLES tested to date, except for one Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic sample (c. 3250 BCE) from CATALONIA and one from PORTUGAL (3000 BCE)"...

The first that come to mind are Pitted Ware samples from Götland, which are c. 3500 BCE and sub-neolithic of even fisher-farmer maybe (they had pigs at the very least, maybe also some cereals). There is also U4 in Starcevo culture (Széncsényi-Nági 2014), Gurgy (Burgundy, Rivollat 2015), Granollers (Catalonia, San Pietro 2007) and the one you mention at Perdigoes.

While I hate to recommend this site (I have serious ethic conflicts with the owner), you may want to bookmark it for further reference because, even if not 100% reliable (she manipulates some data sometimes), it's still good for quick reference: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml

At the very least is much more up to date than what you copied from Eupedia.
Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 12.01.2016 às 18:12

Maju,
anyone who reads gets confused.
I said (and the paper) that "by" 5000 years (neolithic in Sweden and baltic) there were none. Hunter gatheres might have it.

Look at the Map you provided Maju -- pocket where I said it (urals), pocket at caucasus where SSC comes from... and Pocket at lithuania .. pocket over bulgaria (Volga Bolgar's) and where pure Rb1 L23 died (:-) ).

.. got to go.. but will get back to it. Not at all convinced.
Sem imagem de perfil

De Maju a 12.01.2016 às 18:36

"I said (and the paper) that "by" 5000 years (neolithic in Sweden and baltic) there were none. Hunter gatheres might have it".

I don't understand what you mean? That right on a narrow temporal parenthesis U4 vanished from most of Europe? That may well be a fluke: in most areas it was and is too low to reasonably expect to find it in the relatively few samples. Also that period is very unevenly sampled.

In any case I don't understand your logic: you hint at a migration from the Caucasus but you know that U4 was already in Portugal before that might have happened, you hint at a relation with R1b-S116 but you know that R1b is rather rare in the Caucasus (Armenians excepted). You have posited no significant archaeological similitudes of any kind, no plausible route of migration (we're talking of some 5000 km). I don't see how you can fathom any credibility to that conjectured connection at all.
Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 12.01.2016 às 22:49

Thank you for engaging…

fair point. But lets be clear. First we don’t really know nothing we just infer. That is different and it gives a lot of latitude. Either way.

Then,
1 – There is no U4 in Portugal if you discard Chandler et al 2005, because all sides say is unreliable and possibly falsified due to contamination. Even the link you gave me. So, no U4 Portugal before this samples and not before more or less 5,000 year ago. Portugal and Catalonia.

2 - Stora Förvar, Bad Dürrenberg , Spiginas all of those are around 10,000 year old and are from regions “not far” from the urals where U4 was borne and, if you remember that the world is orthodromic, not like we see in a Map in a computer, its then the same distance/effort as to Georgia. So not surprisingly they were there, as there is also lots in Russia samples…Even Bad Dürrenberg , norh Germany, not like baviera or something, is one sample and lets see if it doesn’t turn out H (like happened to others). Lots of U4 much, much later, but all very Bell beaker and Pit ware… Easily spread out of Portugal. But of course all these are very old haplgroups, so 20,000 years being around will always see outliers everywhere specially because probably women were… a “commodity”. And that is why Ydna is so important.

3 – Number declined from source, that is why even places where almos

Of course we need a lot more samples and we need to start having a lot more Y-Dna. Then we will see.
Still… those 6 boys I mentioned… will turn out R1b. I bet you.  it will be just another muddy trick (pun on mudbrick, I know, not that good) in r1b history.
Sem imagem de perfil

De Maju a 13.01.2016 às 00:32

1. I don't think it's likely: the data is relatively old but J. Manco is the one spreading those rumors ONLY because they contradict her pet theory. She equally rejects every single sample that shows mtDNA H in Western Europe. She's not concerned about U4 (that would fit her speculative model, as would U5) but mtDNA H. Anyhow only new data will clarify the issue but as things stand, I'd rather believe reputed researchers Chandler, Sykes and Zilhao than that manipulative greedy [fill in the blank], who is anyhow nothing but an expert in art history.

2. Those are from the Baltic, not the Urals. We do not know that U4 was born at the Urals (why?!) IMO U spread at some point in the early UP, U4 and U5 are its most clear European offshoots, U6 in North Africa (and West Iberia) and other lineages rather seem centered in West Asia or nearby regions.

3. Frequency and source are often not related. Y-DNA Q is most frequent among Native Americans but originated around Iran, Y-DNA R1a is most frequent among Polish, Russians, North Indians... but originated around Iran (also, much later than the former though), Y-DNA R1b is most frequent in West Europe but it originated in Anatolia-Levant almost certainly. MtDNA V is most common among Sámi but for sure that it did not evolve there nor anywhere nearby. It all depends on phylogenetically structured diversity and how it is distributed on the map, not on frequency. And this is a most important lesson you should really take if you want to understand haploid lineages, really. If you don't understand this you won't understand anything.

Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 14.01.2016 às 11:18

Maju, of course its all vague and difficult to figure out... that's why its like a thriller, a murder scene and detective work... and its why we love it!

But!!! 2 things.
a. From Samara region in Volga (Urals) to say Riga in Latvia in Baltic is a 3 hour flight... because de distance is shorter than what looks like in a map and one would imagine. So no surprise on seeing U4 in there... now, crossing the scary forests to come down southern part of Europe... its a different game.

b. I know current frequency of certain haplogrupo doesn´t mean origin… but there is something strange on that small pocket near samara down to Saratov…. It’s a Hotspot, a small blob of R1b ,R1a and U4…. As if R1b where the population living in one side of the river and R1a de population living on the other side! One must concur its strange. As far as I know oldest mutation from R1b is there, oldest found R1a is in there… and U4 shows up deep dark in there… so for a detective theory it looks solid. :- )
Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 12.01.2016 às 17:51

Unfair your point about pits…

Firstly because Shulevari Shomu culture differs from all other cultures that preceded them. Even Trialeti culture (6000-4000 BC) same as them but a bit west had completely diferent ways of burials by having prekurgan mounds and people where buries in supine position (with feet point east) and the following Leyla-Tepe culture (4500-4000) was Kurgan, and even Sioni culture was abruptly different and Kurgan and Metsamor burials were also with supino feet east on pre kurgan mounds.
So only Shulaveri shomu seemed to have specific traits unlike its neighboring and posterior cultures that, most important, you find almost exact match in Perdigoes:

*Buried consecutively in nearby Pits;
* in crouch position,
*in circular negative constructions, sometimes found ash (burned?) in the pits, surround by circular mudbricks architectures with exactly same dimentions (~1,5m and others 4,5m),`later area people even used stone and not mudbrick
*people found with only pottery and cultures of beads ,
* with no riches (contrary to other around even at the same time) like metsamor…
…and also extremely importantly a fixation with anthropomorphic figures.

One could carry on with these similarities almost forever. So its not just children in Pits, ok. The all context is the same! :-)
Sem imagem de perfil

De Maju a 12.01.2016 às 18:38

Maybe that's important in a local West Asian context, we'd need to understand other cultures of the area in that period, but in Western Europe or in Europe in general it seems to me totally trivial: the tradition of the mainline Neolithic culture(s) with roots in Thessaly.
Sem imagem de perfil

De Anónimo a 13.01.2016 às 17:51

Bem... bela discussão... deduzo que conhece este link (faça lá um paper... ;-) )

http://portugueseenclosures.blogspot.pt/

Maria Rebelo
Imagem de perfil

De Olympus Mons a 14.01.2016 às 10:22

OLá Maria,
Sim. Perdigões é um sitio muito importante para todas estas questões que hoje dia fascinam o mundo... excepto para os Portugueses e autoridades em geral. mas vai dar que falar. especialmente porque só um pequena parte foi escavada e na certa haverá muitas ossadas para se analisar. :-)

Comentar post



Mais sobre mim

foto do autor


Subscrever por e-mail

A subscrição é anónima e gera, no máximo, um e-mail por dia.


Arquivo

  1. 2016
  2. J
  3. F
  4. M
  5. A
  6. M
  7. J
  8. J
  9. A
  10. S
  11. O
  12. N
  13. D
  14. 2015
  15. J
  16. F
  17. M
  18. A
  19. M
  20. J
  21. J
  22. A
  23. S
  24. O
  25. N
  26. D
  27. 2014
  28. J
  29. F
  30. M
  31. A
  32. M
  33. J
  34. J
  35. A
  36. S
  37. O
  38. N
  39. D
  40. 2013
  41. J
  42. F
  43. M
  44. A
  45. M
  46. J
  47. J
  48. A
  49. S
  50. O
  51. N
  52. D


Links

Blogs