Back to work

My apologies to readers for being for so long in "lazy mode". Actually I got interrupted largely by a request to provide a quality article on Basque, Sardinian and European origins for a soon to be published collective book in Basque language. This took me a lot of time and energies in late March and early April, so basically I put everything else on hold. The last weeks I've been resting indeed, what may be aggravated by a declining health that makes me sleep irregularly and often for much longer than most of you do. Being fed up with Internet information feeds and a quite active political reality also drain my energies to other endeavors, not to mention paperwork.

In this sense I want to announce that I have begun recently a new multi-purpose blog in Spanish language: Bagauda. Most of it is politics, I warn you, but I have also included the unedited raw article for that book I mention in the previous paragraph (prior to translation to Basque and corrections). I'm reasonably sure that those of you who have Spanish as primary or even secondary language will be interested in having a look (→ here).

Another relevant entry was the announcement of the upcoming congress on Iruña-Veleia to be held on May 7 in Vitoria-Gasteiz. You can still register but hurry up.

I will now proceed to comment in a separate entry on the news of the week, the Fu et al. study of a large array of Paleoeuropean ancient DNA. But, before I get to that, I must mention some interesting studies that I have not been able to get time to even properly read, let alone discuss:

• K. Voskarides, S. Mazières et al., Y-chromosome phylogeographic analysis of the Greek-Cypriot population reveals elements consistent with Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements. Investigative Genetics 2016. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1186/s13323-016-0032-8]
• B. Vernot et al., Excavating Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from the genomes of Melanesian individuals. Science 2016. Freely accessible (with registration?) → LINK [doi:10.1126/science.aad9416]
• Y.Y. Waldman, A. Biddanda et al., The Genetics of Bene Israel from India Reveals Both Substantial Jewish and Indian Ancestry. PLoS ONE 2016. Open access → LINK [doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152056]

Another intriguing new independent paper by a regular visitor and commenter to this blog, Olympus Mons, that I have not yet read is:

→ R1b from Sulaweri-Shomu to Bell Beaker, available as PDF or in blog format.

He seems to argue for a Caucasus origin of both the lineage and Bell Beaker phenomenon. I have no opinion as of yet, because, simply put, I have not been able to read it in full.

Another regular visitor here to have put an independent paper online, also on the issue of R1b origins, is Paul Conroy:

→ Anatole A. Klyosov and Paul M. Conroy, Origins of the Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English R1b-M222 population. Available at Paul's Academia.edu account.

Again I have not yet got the opportunity to read it, so no opinion. 

Feel free to use this entry to comment on any of the aforementioned studies or articles or to provide info about stuff I may have missed.

PPNB ancient mtDNA and its legacy

There are several interesting studies in my "to do" list and I will be commenting them in the following days (I am quite busy these weeks and therefore I concentrate my efforts on weekends).

In this entry we have a rather interesting analysis of ancient mtDNA from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B of Syria (NE and South) and its legacy on modern populations of West Asia and SE Europe, as well as on ancient European Neolithic ones.

Eva Fernández et al., Ancient DNA Analysis of 8000 B.C. Near Eastern Farmers Supports an Early Neolithic Pioneer Maritime Colonization of Mainland Europe through Cyprus and the Aegean Islands. PLoS Genetics 2014. Open access → LINK [doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004401]

I understand that the sequences are not really new but that they were first discussed in Fernández 2005 (thesis in Spanish) and 2008. What is new is the comparison with ancient and modern populations in search of their possible legacy.

Early PPNB (from CONTEXT C14 database)

In spite of the relevance of this analysis, it must be cautioned that the Tell Ramad and Tell Halula sites may not be fully representative of the actual genetic diversity of PPNB as a whole, a cultural area that spanned all the Levant, from the Kurdish mountains to the Sinai and Cyprus.

If, as the authors argue and I have already suggested in relation to the NE African affinities of European Neolithic ancestry, the arrival of Neolithic to Thessaly happened via a coastal route, inland PPNB sites may well not be as informative as Palestinian or Cypriot ones.

But this is what we have for now, so let's see what these ancient Syrian farmers tell us, while we await further Neolithic sequences from potentially more relevant sites.

Table 1. Mitochondrial DNA typing of 15 Near Eastern PPNB skeletons.

40% of the sequences belong to haplogroup K, a U8-derived lineage unknown in Europe before the Neolithic. Most of the other lineages (40%) belong to R0 but half of them belong to R0(xHV), extremely rare in Europe (common in Arabia instead) and the H sequences cannot be identified either with anything common nowadays. The remaining 20% of lineages (U*, N* and L3*) are not too helpful either.

So when the authors compare them with modern and ancient populations most of the affinity corresponds to a single basal haplotype of K (16224C,16311C) as described in supplementary table 5.

Figure 2. Contour map displaying the percentage of individuals of the database carrying PPNB haplotypes.
Only populations with clear geographic distribution were included. Gradients indicate the degree of similarity between PPNB and modern populations (dark: high; clear: small).

The SE European and West Asian populations with the greatest legacy of this haplotype are: the Csángó of Moldavia (22%), Cypriots (13%), Ashkenazi Jews (11%), Crimean Tatars (10%) and Georgians (9%). Cardium Pottery farmers from Catalonia (23%) and a pooled Central European Danubian Neolithic sample (10%) also score high for this lineage.

Some other PPNB matrilineages also show some lesser modern prevalence:

• 16223T (L3) → Qatar, Yemen (not necessarily the same L3(xM,N) lineage, it must be said)
• 16224C,16311C,16366T (K) → Druze
• 16256T (H) → Bedouin

The other haplotypes have not been detected in modern nor European Neolithic populations.

The obvious conclusion is that only the 16224C+16311C K haplotype was, of all the Euphrates PPNB lineages active in the Neolithic European founder effect. This haplotype was present only in 1/15 individuals from the Euphrates PPNB, so rather marginal over there, although a close relative found today among the Druze was more common (3/15).

Another conclusion is that the Csángó probably have a quite direct line of ancestry to the early European farmers, shedding some light on the origin of this mysterious population at risk of extinction.

The coastal route to Thessaly proposed here makes all sense to me because, on one side, early Anatolian Neolithic cultures do not seem to have any obvious cultural affinity with the first European Neolithic of Sesklo (Painted Pottery) and Otzaki (Cardium Pottery), and, on the other side, there is clear evidence of some NE African genetic legacy mediated by Palestine: Y-DNA E1b-V13 naturally but also the "Basal Eurasian" speculation of Lazaridis that ended up being revealed as Dinka affinity in fig. S7 of Skoglund & Malström.

This theory can only be strongly confirmed if Palestinian and Cypriot ancient DNA is sequenced and fits well in it. Similarly ancient Balcanic DNA would be most interesting to have as well for a more direct reference. But, in any case, the theory seems at the very least plausible and supported by some important evidence.

My hypothetical reconstruction of a plausible coastal route of Neolithic towards Thessaly (dashed red line)
on a base map of Middle PPNB from the CONTEXT database.

It is also important to notice that the Syrian PPNB sequences are different from the modern mtDNA pool of West Asia, dominated by lineages like J, T1 and U3. This suggests that, at the very least in this region of the Syrian Euphrates, there have been important demographic changes since Neolithic, something confirmed by data from the same are but of later dates (which anyhow is not yet modern either). 

Fernández et al. discuss this issue in some detail:

Our PPNB population includes a high percentage (80%) of lineages with a Palaeolithic coalescence age (K, R0 and U*) and differs from the current populations from the same area, which exhibit a high frequency of mitochondrial haplogroups J, T1 and U3 (Table S7). The latter have been traditionally linked with the Neolithic expansion due to their younger coalescence age, diversity and geographic distribution [11], [12], [49]. In addition to the PPNB population, haplogroup T1 is also absent in other Early Neolithic populations analyzed so far [17], [22], [26], [30]. Haplogroup U3 has been found only in one LBK individual and it has been suggested that it could have been already part of the pre-Neolithic Central European mitochondrial background [19].

Haplogroup J is present in moderate frequencies in Central European LBK-AVK populations (11.75%) and it has been proposed as part of the Central European “mitochondrial Neolithic package” [19]. However, it has also been described in one late hunter-gatherer specimen of Germany, raising the possibility of a pre-Neolithic origin [23]. Haplogroup J is present in low frequency (4%) in Cardial/Epicardial Neolithic samples of North Eastern Spain [27], [28], [31]. Absence of Mesolithic samples from the same region prevents making any inference about its emergence during the Mesolithic or the Neolithic. However, its absence in the PPNB genetic background reinforces the first hypothesis.

These findings suggest that (1) late Neolithic or post-Neolithic demographic processes rather than the original Neolithic expansion might have been responsible for the current distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups J, T1 and U3 in Europe and the Near East and (2) lineages with Late Paleolithic coalescent times might have played an important role in the Neolithic expansive process. The first suggestion alerts against the use of modern Near Eastern populations as representative of the genetic stock of the first Neolithic farmers while the second will be explored in depth in the following section.

From the viewpoint of material Prehistory, it is of course correct, that PPNB was overwhelmed by later cultural processes, which may have implied demic expansions and replacements of some sort, even if many of them seem to originate within West Asia.

First of all, there is the Halafian cultural expansion, originating in Upper Mesopotamia; then we also have to consider the Semitic cultural and linguistic expansion, originating in Palestine; finally we have to consider the Indoeuropean waves: first the Anatolian group (Hittites, etc.) via the Caucasus, later the Balcanic group of Phrygians (and probably Armenians as derived branch) and finally the Iranian one from Central Asia. Even within the Semitic expansion there were probably several waves as well. All together must have significantly reshuffled the genetic landscape of the region. 

But unless we get more ancient West Asian DNA it will be most difficult to discern clearly how all that played out. After all the Syrian Euphrates can be exceptional in many aspects, being right in the middle of all: a true pivot of the Fertile Crescent, subject to pressure from all directions. 

Bronze Age Sweden imported its copper

Dienekes' Anthropology Blog mentions this week several papers that dwell in the nature of the Nordic Bronze Age, specifically in Southern Sweden. It turns out that the copper used by the Nordic smiths was not local in almost all cases but imported from elsewhere in Europe (Sardinia, Iberia, Auvergne, Tyrol and British Islands) or even West Asia (Cyprus). This imported copper was exchanged by essentially amber, it seems, an export product of the Nordic area since the Chalcolithic. Nothing is said about the tin needed to make bronze but most likely it came from SW Britain and/or NW Iberia, as these were the two main producers of the strategic metal in old times.

Of the three mentioned papers only one is freely accessible, and also quite interesting to read:

Nils-Axel Mörner & Bob G. Lind, The Bronze Age in SE Sweden Evidence of Long-Distance Travel and Advanced Sun Cult. Journal of Geography and Geology 2013. Open access → LINK [doi:10.5539/jgg.v5n1p78]

Abstract

The Bronze Age of Scandinavia (1750-500 BC) is characterized by the sudden appearance of bronze objects in Scandinavia, the sudden mass appearance of amber in Mycenaean graves, and the beginning of bedrock carvings of huge ships. We take this to indicate that people from the east Mediterranean arrived to Sweden on big ships over the Atlantic, carrying bronze objects from the south, which they traded for amber occurring in SE Sweden in the Ravlunda-Vitemölla–Kivik area. Those visitors left strong cultural imprints as recorded by pictures and objects found in SE Sweden. This seems to indicate that the visits had grown to the establishment of a trading centre. The Bronze Age of Österlen (the SE part of Sweden) is also characterized by a strong Sun cult recorded by stone monuments built to record the annual motions of the Sun, and rock carvings that exhibit strict alignments to the annual motions of the Sun. Ales Stones, dated at about 800 BC, is a remarkable monument in the form of a 67 m long stone-ship. It records the four main solar turning points of the year, the 12 months of the year, each month covering 30 days, except for month 7 which had 35 days (making a full year of 365 days), and the time of the day at 16 points representing 1.5 hour. Ales Stones are built after the same basic geometry as Stonehenge in England.

The other two are sold under mercantile schemes:

Johan Ling et al., Moving metals or indigenous mining? Provenancing Scandinavian Bronze Age artefacts by lead isotopes and trace elements. Journal of Archaeological Science 2013. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.040]

I.B. Gubanov, Grave Circle B at Mycenae in the Context of Links Between the Eastern Mediterranean and Scandinavia in the Bronze Age. Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 2012. Pay per view → LINK [doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2012.08.011]

Ling's paper is the one indicating that Swedish copper had exotic Atlantic and Mediterranean origins, while Gubanov's highlights that amber from the Baltic is found in one Mycenaean grave (specifically Grave Circle B) and not in any known Minoan (Eteocretan) one. For him this means that bronze metallurgy and other associated elements like the quadruple spiral motif arrived with Mycenaean sailors in the Bronze Age. 

Grave Circle B is actually older than the much more famous Grave Circle A (the pseudo "Agamenon's Tomb"), although both belong to the Late Helladic I period (c. 1550-1500 BCE).

(public domain, credit: myself)

This chronology is interesting because it was roughly in those dates when SE Iberian El Argar civilization began its phase B, characterized by Greek influence in burials (pithoi). It is worth mentioning here that while these are the first findings of amber from Nordic Europe in the Eastern Mediterranean, such jewels were common in Iberia since c. 3000 BCE (beginnings of Chalcolithic period). 

It would seem therefore clear that Iberia was a pivotal area in this purported Scandinavian-Greek exchange. The question is: did the early Greek sailors actually reached Scandinavia themselves or were they rather just receiving products by mediation of Iberian traders with a long tradition of Atlantic (and Mediterranean) navigation?

It is probably a hard to answer question. But the studies point to some relevant cues, like the Swedish drawings of ships with rams and the presence of the (originally Mediterranean?) motif of the quadruple spiral, so similar to the Basque lauburu (four heads) icon (probably related to both the svastika and triskel). 

Figure 3.B. the spiral ornament from Sweden and Greece

This spiral icon is not Mycenaean in origin, having been found in Minoan Crete and Megalithic Malta (right), which are respectively older and a lot older than the Mycenaeans. The motif is not even exclusive of Europe, with very similar concepts found for example in the pottery of Western Mexico.

So while the similitude is striking, this evidence is not conclusive on its own. 

The Cypriot copper evidence alone is not enough evidence of Mycenaean presence in Scandinavia, very especially as Cyprus seems important, long before the Mycenaeans in the East-West Mediterranean connections. Cyprus used their own script (probably used for the native Eteocypriot language) up to the 4th century BCE and while Mycenaean presence in the island seems attested in the very late Bronze Age, the island was not a Mycenaean center at all but rather was under Hittite and Ugaritic influence instead.  

So we are left with the claim of rammed ships being coincident with the Mycenaean period. However what I find searching around are dates of c. 1700 BCE (Norway), very early in the Mycenaean chronology and some two centuries older than the single amber finding in Mycenae. It could indeed be a Mycenaean influence but how conclusive is it?

I have a vague memory of a Mycenaean ship (?) found years ago in the waters of Denmark or Germany, however I can't find anything searching online. Does anyone know something more detailed on the matter? This would be key evidence but I cannot trust my memory alone. 

So there seems to be some sort of interaction between the Eastern Mediterranean and Scandinavia but, as far as I can tell, specifically Mycenaean presence in the Far North is circumstantial rather than conclusive. 

Besides the issue of purported trade with the Mediterranean, there are some other interesting elements in Mörner & Lind 2013, notably the description of the Ales Stones ship-shaped megalith ("sun ship") as an astronomical calendar:

Not sure how new this is but it is a very interesting thing to know, right?



Update (May 17): Dispatches from Turtle Island has some interesting and realistic calculations on how long would take an ancient ship to sail from Greece to Sweden and back (c. 112 days, he estimates).

Cyprus Neolithic among the earliest ones

A Cornell University press release tell us of how the view of Cyprus Neolithic is changing as research advances.

"Up until two decades ago, nobody thought anybody had gone to Cyprus before about 8,000 years ago, and the island was treated as irrelevant to the development of the Neolithic in the Near East," Manning said. "Then Alan Simmons (now at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas) discovered a couple of sites that seemed to suggest Epipaleolithic peoples went there maybe about 12,000 or 13,000 years ago, much earlier than anyone had thought possible. The big question started to become in the field, well, what happened in between?"

The new findings at Ayia Varvara Asprokremnos, in the central part of the island, place early Cypriot Neolithic c. 11,000 years ago (9000 BCE), totally in line with mainland Neolithic in West Asia: PPNA may be as old as 10,700 BCE, with more common occurrences after 9500 BCE. So the Neolithic of Cyprus seems to be one of the first offshoots of West Eurasian Neolithic.

... these dates mean that Cyprus, an island tens of miles off the Levantine coast, was involved in the very early Neolithic world, and thus long-distance sea travel and maritime communication must now be actively factored into discussions of how the Neolithic developed and spread.

Ref. Sturt W. Manning et al., The earlier Neolithic in Cyprus: recognition and dating of a Pre-Pottery Neolithic A occupation. Antiquity 2010. Pay per view.

Found via R&D, via Archaeology in Europe.