Cavalli-Svorza's principal components of European genetics

[suomenlinna]

Luigi Cavalli-Svorza is an expert on population genetics and in his books has identified the four or five prinicipal components accounting for most of the genetic disparity within Europe. I am wondering how these relate to the racial classifications (UP, Brunn, etc) used on this forum. The principal components are:
1) Neolithic spread of agriculture from the Middle East along the Mediterranean and along Western Europe. From my imperfect understanding of the racial classifications in this forum, it seems that this might correspond to what is being called a Palaeolithic type, but I don't understand why you don't call it a Neolithic type. I know little about this. Can someone clear up my confusion?
2) Interesting 2nd component is Finno-Ugric expansion from the north-east of the continent, accounting for 10% of Finnish genetics and 12% of Hungarian.
3) Indo-European: Cavalli-Svorza theorises that a genetic expansion from somewhere north of the Caspian sea is the 3rd largest component and corresponds to the spread of Indo-European languages. Does this correspond to the spread of any genetic types?
4) The 4th (but historically 1st) is the expansion from the Basque country, a Rhesus negative population that must have been there in Palaeolithic times. How does this relate to your understanding of Palaeolithic racial types?
5) The final component is an expansion from Greece along the Mediterranean that seems historically to correlate to the spread of Greek colonies.

Can these principal components be matched up with racial types in a way that explains genotypes?

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by suomenlinna

1) Neolithic spread of agriculture from the Middle East along the Mediterranean and along Western Europe. From my imperfect understanding of the racial classifications in this forum, it seems that this might correspond to what is being called a Palaeolithic type, but I don't understand why you don't call it a Neolithic type. I know little about this. Can someone clear up my confusion?

The Paleolithic types are the native types in Europe before the spread of the Neolithics from the Middle East. You list them on #4.

2) Interesting 2nd component is Finno-Ugric expansion from the north-east of the continent, accounting for 10% of Finnish genetics and 12% of Hungarian.

And perhaps other Eurasian types?

3) Indo-European: Cavalli-Svorza theorises that a genetic expansion from somewhere north of the Caspian sea is the 3rd largest component and corresponds to the spread of Indo-European languages. Does this correspond to the spread of any genetic types?

Apparently. Some Slavics?

4) The 4th (but historically 1st) is the expansion from the Basque country, a Rhesus negative population that must have been there in Palaeolithic times. How does this relate to your understanding of Palaeolithic racial types?

Those Paleolithic populations did not just spread from the glacial refuges in Iberia, but also from the Balkans and the Caucasus.

5) The final component is an expansion from Greece along the Mediterranean that seems historically to correlate to the spread of Greek colonies.

Colonies far from Greece mainland would be mere trade outpost with no consequences whatsoever with respect to a genetic spread. I think that it is far from being any principal component.

Can these principal components be matched up with racial types in a way that explains genotypes?

Generally speaking, rather as sub-components of modern genotypes. Or maybe you are right, but it would be hard to tell unless we could identify absolutely every and each sub-racial type with one of these types. Now, can we?

[Gil]

It's hard to make an exact or even approximate approach on genotype/phenotype/haplogroups. Anyway, hope this helps:

For example, when it comes to Europe, the haplogroups observed can be broadly split into two groups, Palaeolithic and Neolithic.
The first image (Map 1) shows Palaeolithic Europe 18,000 years ago in the grip of the last ice age. Glacial ice 2km thick covers much of Northern Europe and the Alps. Sea levels are approx. 125m lower than today and the coastline differs slightly from the present day. For example, Britain and Ireland would have been connected to continental Europe (not shown on map).

Map 1 - Ice age Europe (18,000 years ago)

The air would have been on average 10-12 degrees cooler and much more arid. In between the ice and the tree line, drought-tolerant grasses and dunes would have dominated the landscape.
The Neanderthals would have died out around 14,000 years ago leaving the nomadic hunter-gatherer Cro-Magnon (modern man) to pursue the animals of the time. Due to the cold and the need for food, the populations of the day waited the ice age out in the three locations shown on the map. These were the Iberian Peninsula, the Balkans and the Ukraine.

These people were skilled in flint-knapping techniques and various tools such as end-scrapers for animal skins and burins for working wood and engraving were common. Cave painting using charcoal had been around for a couple of thousand years although at this time they were now more subtle than mere outline drawings. These artistic expressions are significant as it shows that people are able to obtain some leisure time. Whether this is ‘art for art’s sake’ or objects of ritual is not known.

If we fast forward to 12,000 years ago (Map 2), the ice has retreated and the land has become much more supportive to life. Many animal species have returned to inhabit the land, although the snake, harvest mouse and mole never made it as far as Ireland before the land bridges re-flooded (ever wondered why there are no snakes in Ireland?).

Map 2- spread of Haplogroups R1b, I and R1a (12,000 years ago)

The three groups of humans had taken refuge for so long that their DNA had naturally picked up mutations, and consequently can be defined into different haplogroups. As they spread from these refuges, Haplogroups R1b, I and R1a propagated across Europe.

- Haplogroup R1b is common on the western Atlantic coast as far as Scotland.
- Haplogroup I is common across central Europe and up into Scandinavia.
- Haplogroup R1a is common in eastern Europe and has also spread across into central Asia and as far as India and Pakistan.

These three major haplogroups account for approx 80% of Europe's present-day population. Around 8,000 years ago (Map 3), the Neolithic peoples of the Middle East that had developed the new technology of agriculture began moving into Europe. There were several haplogroups involved, mainly E3b, F, J2 and G2.

Map 3 - spread of Neolithic haplogroups (from 8,000 years ago)

These Neolithic haplogroups came in several waves over time and are found predominantly along the Mediterranean coast. Around 20% of the present-day population are from these Neolithic haplogroups. What is interesting to note is that the agricultural technology spread much further than the people who first 'invented' it. A little later, around 4,500 years ago, Haplogroup N3 began moving across from west of the Ural mountains. Haplogroup N3 follows closely the spread of the Finno-Ugric languages.


Now a personal note: just because you have for example a neolithic haplogroup (E3b, J, G2, etc) does not mean you don't have "paleolithic" ancestry and physical traits, it just means that genetically you are descendant of neolithic types. There are no "pure breeds", no direct descendants or original types.

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

@Manji: your post now seems rather incomplete/outdated:

Interesting new info on R1b...

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Manji

Now a personal note: just because you have for example a neolithic haplogroup (E3b, J, G2, etc) does not mean you don't have "paleolithic" ancestry and physical traits, it just means that genetically you are descendant of neolithic types. There are no "pure breeds", no direct descendants or original types.

Is the contrary true? I assume it is.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

I think Manji's post and analysis are correct. Of course we all have both Neolithic and Paleolithic ancestors which is understandable given the time frame involved. And of course we have all lost some genetic markers from some of our ancestors several generations back. After all, there is only so much room on a chromosome, so as people move through time, some genetic markers will be replaced by others of more recent ancestors.

[Gil]

Janez: yes, to some extent.... what I posted is not properly outdated, just a general overview since it's just a guideline to understanding paleolithic/neolithic expansion in Europe. Anyway, you are right, I should make a complete overview of paleolithic and neolithic advances in Europe.
Damn Slavs always nit-picking....

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

Originally Posted by Manji

Janez: yes, to some extent.... what I posted is not properly outdated, just a general overview since it's just a guideline to understanding paleolithic/neolithic expansion in Europe. Anyway, you are right, I should make a complete overview of paleolithic and neolithic advances in Europe.
Damn Slavs always nit-picking....

Furthermore, one ought to consult this study:
The effect of the Neolithic expansion on European molecular diversity

[Kalevi]

Originally Posted by Manji

A little later, around 4,500 years ago, Haplogroup N3 began moving across from west of the Ural mountains.

Is there any studies about the age of N3? I would be interested.

Originally Posted by Manji

Haplogroup N3 follows closely the spread of the Finno-Ugric languages.

No it doesn't. It has two peaks, the Finns and the Yakuts. Finno-Ugric languages are from the bend of Volga river.

[daspit]

Originally Posted by suomenlinna

Luigi Cavalli-Svorza is an expert on population genetics and in his books has identified the four or five prinicipal components accounting for most of the genetic disparity within Europe. I am wondering how these relate to the racial classifications (UP, Brunn, etc) used on this forum. The principal components are:
1) Neolithic spread of agriculture from the Middle East along the Mediterranean and along Western Europe. From my imperfect understanding of the racial classifications in this forum, it seems that this might correspond to what is being called a Palaeolithic type, but I don't understand why you don't call it a Neolithic type. I know little about this. Can someone clear up my confusion?

Cavalli-Sforza used to subscribe to the theory that the Neolithic population replaced the original Paleolithic population of Europe. Genetic studies of Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA have since discredited that theory.

The Neolithic spread of agriculture can partially be traced by the Y-haplogroup J2.


2) Interesting 2nd component is Finno-Ugric expansion from the north-east of the continent, accounting for 10% of Finnish genetics and 12% of Hungarian.

Largely haplogroup N as mentioned above.

3) Indo-European: Cavalli-Svorza theorises that a genetic expansion from somewhere north of the Caspian sea is the 3rd largest component and corresponds to the spread of Indo-European languages. Does this correspond to the spread of any genetic types?

Largely haplogroup R1a, also found in the higher classes of the Indian subcontinent, supporting something like an "Aryan invasion" theory.

4) The 4th (but historically 1st) is the expansion from the Basque country, a Rhesus negative population that must have been there in Palaeolithic times. How does this relate to your understanding of Palaeolithic racial types?

Largely haplogroup R1b.

5) The final component is an expansion from Greece along the Mediterranean that seems historically to correlate to the spread of Greek colonies.

Again, this correlates to J2 for the most part and is difficult to distinguish from #1.

Can these principal components be matched up with racial types in a way that explains genotypes?

Racial types, as used in this forum to describe skull measurements, are largely meaningless from a genetic and scientific viewpoint.

[daspit]

Sorry, in my post above, some of my reply is italicized as though it were a quote from the previous poster.

[Gil]

People need to keep in mind that regardless of being a great scientist, Cavalli-Sforza develops theories, based on the study of population gene pools and genetic drift and as such are subject to interpretation. He is, doubtless, one of the best genetic anthropologists the world has seen so far and his theories seem (so far) to be in line with archeological discoveries and more recent studies but his masterpiece is becoming, slowly, outdated and as such new studies will be made, new data compiled and ,the most important part, new theories will be formulated.
As it is, one cannot clearly draw lines between some phenotypes and genotypes though some seem to match to a great extent.
For example, a common mistake is to associate neolithic types with "light build" (in osteological terms) while that is a blatant mistake because robust builds occur in neolithic types but the majority are lighter than paleolithic types of course.

There are no "pure" types, perhaps the difference between types is more clinal and what happens is that the percentage of neolithic types in say Greece is higher than say Norway and even when types are a match (for example, a indigenous neolithic type from Norway and an indigenous neolithic type from Greece) they will differ in phenotypic terms because phenotype is subject to adaptation.

Sorry for the boring post mates

[kestutisturbo]

Thanks. Nice maps, but I have seen the map of archaeological sites showing the presence of living places in the central Europe and archaeologists have found that some hunters of Mammoth lived even by the river Pripiat in Bielorussia

[kestutisturbo]

I have seen the map where some forest near Carpatian mountains (in the south) existed

[kestutisturbo]

http://www.continuitas.com/interdisciplinary.pdf

page 13 map 6 shows localisation of some ice age settlements 13 thousand years BC